Scientific Tests Of Christianity

[_asbestosman]

I've seen you talking about knowing about Iraq even without ever being there. Seen that often from you lately. I appreciate it every time you write it, for some reason or another. :)

It's probably because I stole it from Tarski who mentioned it on my "Horton Hears a Who" thread in the Old Testament forum.

I accept that you believe in God. It's not my thoughts, but I can attempt to relate to you and understand your thoughts. So, if someone came back from Iraq and told me stories I could hear the stories (much like those that tell me about their experiences with God) and understand what occurred to them. Yet, if I wanted to go to Iraq I could go. Not just their personal testimony -- no, I could verify that it is indeed there if I doubted them.

But there are places you can't go even if you wanted to. Do you believe what scientists tell us about Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? How do you know it isn't made up just like the Death Star and light sabers in Star Wars?

Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence of Iraq. What is the overwhelming evidence in support of God? And if you rely on faith why do you need evidence at all?

I think it best to rely on what evidence is available and to use faith where necessary when one cannot yet find all the pices to the puzzle. Faith with no evidence would be much too difficult (and dangerous) I'd think. I belive that's why many of us talk about things like inspiration, priesthood blessings, mircales, and other such things.

[Analytics]

What would be the placebo?

Scientology? Atheism?

Just kidding.

[_Moniker]

Bcspace said there were some scientific tests to determine the validity of Christianity.

He proposed this as one from the Bible:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Any "scientific test to determine the validity of Christianity" would have to deal with Christianity's exclusive claims that distinguish it from other faiths. That one wouldn't qualify.

They'd have to specifically deal with the claims of resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ, on which all Christianity is founded. Not on proofs of God, or a supreme being, or divine guidance. So bcspace's attempt misses the mark.

I was guessing that the BCSpace would have us ask God if the claims were true?

[_the road to hana]

Bcspace said there were some scientific tests to determine the validity of Christianity.

He proposed this as one from the Bible:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Any "scientific test to determine the validity of Christianity" would have to deal with Christianity's exclusive claims that distinguish it from other faiths. That one wouldn't qualify.

They'd have to specifically deal with the claims of resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ, on which all Christianity is founded. Not on proofs of God, or a supreme being, or divine guidance. So bcspace's attempt misses the mark.

I was guessing that the BCSpace would have us ask God if the claims were true?

I don't know about bcspace, but Charity certainly would.

[Guest]

I accept that you believe in God. It's not my thoughts, but I can attempt to relate to you and understand your thoughts. So, if someone came back from Iraq and told me stories I could hear the stories (much like those that tell me about their experiences with God) and understand what occurred to them. Yet, if I wanted to go to Iraq I could go. Not just their personal testimony -- no, I could verify that it is indeed there if I doubted them.

But there are places you can't go even if you wanted to. Do you believe what scientists tell us about Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? How do you know it isn't made up just like the Death Star and light sabers in Star Wars?

Oh! When I was typing that up I KNEW you were going to come back with something like that. Although I was thinking along the lines of ancient history.... haha! :P

Well, can they verify it's there? Can their peers agree on it? Can the claims to these galaxies, planets, whatever be independently verified? For instance, you have one scientist that says, "Hey guys! Look at this! Woop!" and the other scientists come in and scratch their chins and go, "Yep, I see it too!". So, you take people that are trained to do this and they look at it and come to the same conclusion. If you take two people that are trained to be religious (I don't know what that means!:) and can't come to the same conclusion over God -- doesn't that mean something??

Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence of Iraq. What is the overwhelming evidence in support of God? And if you rely on faith why do you need evidence at all?

I think it best to rely on what evidence is available and to use faith where necessary when one cannot yet find all the pices to the puzzle. Faith with no evidence would be much too difficult (and dangerous) I'd think. I belive that's why many of us talk about things like inspiration, priesthood blessings, mircales, and other such things.

I don't have a problem with faith. We all rely on faith! I just don't understand why those that are religious are uncomfortable fully embracing their faith and attempting to use evidence to support their religion.

[_asbestosman]

I think it best to rely on what evidence is available and to use faith where necessary when one cannot yet find all the pices to the puzzle. Faith with no evidence would be much too difficult (and dangerous) I'd think. I belive that's why many of us talk about things like inspiration, priesthood blessings, mircales, and other such things.

I don't have a problem with faith. We all rely on faith! I just don't understand why those that are religious are uncomfortable fully embracing their faith and attempting to use evidence to support their religion.

My point was that faith alone probably isn't enough for people. Perhaps it should be, but I think it's understandable that faith isn't sufficient for most. What I find irritating isn't that people use evidence to support their faith, but that they think the evidence is sufficient to argue their case with others who do not share their faith.

If you take two people that are trained to be religious (I don't know what that means!:) and can't come to the same conclusion over God -- doesn't that mean something??

It probably means that there are some important differences between religion and science.

[_Moniker]

What would be the placebo?

Scientology? Atheism?

Just kidding.

I vote for Scientology or the Unarians! I just want to be able to use the jargon or wear the spiffy clothes!

[_Moniker]

I think it best to rely on what evidence is available and to use faith where necessary when one cannot yet find all the pices to the puzzle. Faith with no evidence would be much too difficult (and dangerous) I'd think. I belive that's why many of us talk about things like inspiration, priesthood blessings, mircales, and other such things.

I don't have a problem with faith. We all rely on faith! I just don't understand why those that are religious are uncomfortable fully embracing their faith and attempting to use evidence to support their religion.

My point was that faith alone probably isn't enough for people. Perhaps it should be, but I think it's understandable that faith isn't sufficient for most. What I find irritating isn't that people use evidence to support their faith, but that they think the evidence is sufficient to argue their case with others who do not share their faith.

Well, I agree with you! It's interesting for me to watching mainstream Christians and LDS hash out their religious spats -- but, when dealing with those that don't share their faith in God the arguments all sort of crumble.

[_the road to hana]

I think it best to rely on what evidence is available and to use faith where necessary when one cannot yet find all the pices to the puzzle. Faith with no evidence would be much too difficult (and dangerous) I'd think. I belive that's why many of us talk about things like inspiration, priesthood blessings, mircales, and other such things.

I don't have a problem with faith. We all rely on faith! I just don't understand why those that are religious are uncomfortable fully embracing their faith and attempting to use evidence to support their religion.

My point was that faith alone probably isn't enough for people. Perhaps it should be, but I think it's understandable that faith isn't sufficient for most. What I find irritating isn't that people use evidence to support their faith, but that they think the evidence is sufficient to argue their case with others who do not share their faith.

Well, I agree with you! It's interesting for me to watching mainstream Christians and LDS hash out their religious spats -- but, when dealing with those that don't share their faith in God the arguments all sort of crumble.

I think an important distinction to be made between Christianity as a movement and Mormonism as one is that Christianity grew out of a single event that purportedly took place two thousand years ago. Scientific claims go entirely to (1) the historical existence of Jesus Christ and (2) proofs of the resurrection.

Mormonism is just a hodgepodgey religion that piggybacks on Christianity. If scientific claims for Christianity fail, Mormonism cannot be true. Taking some post-1830 approach to something that purportedly took place two thousand years ago doesn't work in the "scientific evidences" department.

There was, reportedly, a single individual two thousand years ago that people claim to have known personally, and an event took place that people claim to have witnessed personally. That was the beginnings of the Christian movement.

Eighteen-hundred years later, someone wants to brand their own version of it in response to reformation theology (voila! a restoration!). But there are no scientific proofs to be made in 1830 or subsequently that have bearing on something that would need to be proven scientifically eighteen hundred years earlier.

(I expect, grotesque as this might seem to some, this is part of the reason that the early Christians hung onto relics, so they could later say they had something tangible as evidence to support their own faith, whether it actually succeeded in doing that or not.)

[_karl61]

A tragic story regarding faith and science.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy_FocuLcPyslOqVeaOFan8yo7eQD8VM3A680


The writers of the gospels report that Jesus said (If I recall correctly) that a vipers bite will cause no harm to an apostle. What type of faith is the believer to have - if they don't seek medical treatment is it because they believe in faith. As should be done in the case stated above - the parents other children were taken into protective custody.