How God works (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 16:25 (4323 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
TONY: Not at all. The "Big Picture" is a chain of events as well. -A story IS a chain of events. And all the events are centred on the Jewish/Christian version of God.-TONY: The hypotheses were the prophecies, which were tested in the laboratory of life, and confirmed.
 
I'll leave you and David to argue about the prophecies.-TONY: The non-existence of god is no more unique than Abiogensis, String theory, Evolution, or any other theory for which we have no DIRECT OBSERVATION. So, again, what is your criteria?-I gave them to you in the post which you are responding to and now echoing: "When scientists explain natural phenomena and their explanations are confirmed by experiment and observation, I trust them. When they hypothesize and theorize on subjects that probably can't be confirmed (e.g. abiogenesis, multiverses, universes that spring from nothing), I am sceptical." Your belief in God, his benign nature, and Christian eschatology naturally comes under the second category.
 
DHW: Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? 
TONY: Not all, certainly, but some most definitely. I have actually quoted non-christian/non-jewish historians and archaeology that confirms my points. -Are you saying your non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists should by now all have been converted to Christianity? Why do you think the unprejudiced ones have not been converted?-DHW:History and archaeology: History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians.
TONY: Aside from the obvious fact that Shakespeare was not writing a history, I understand your point. However, when such rich details of accounts have been verified by multiple accounts from respectable sources, do you not give them credibility?-Like any other historian, Shakespeare did his research and then wrote his own version. If several eye-witnesses report on an event, and it can be authenticated by independent experts (historians, archaeologists etc.), of course I will give them credibility. But nobody can authenticate claims that God thought, said or did this and that. Even when recounting a true story, every writer fills in the gaps with his imagination. Do you not think it possible that, like Shakespeare, your authors made up stories, put dialogue into the mouths of their characters, and sometimes even twisted history to fit their own purposes?
 
TONY: But if Gipsy Rose has a perfect track record for all the [prophecies] that have happened already, shouldn't you be more inclined to perk up when she is telling you what is going to happen in the future?-Even if Isaiah did get some right, that is no reason for me to believe St John. You always argue as if the bible was one book by one author!-DHW: Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.
TONY: David has given us so much evidence that it would be near insulting for me to try and top his efforts. The most basic though, is the Law of Biogenesis that has never been disproven, and the fact that without information, physical life can not exist(i.e. information must proceed physical life)-I asked for objective evidence that God exists. David has put as powerful a scientific case against chance as one could wish for. But he goes one step beyond science: if chance didn't do it, by inference God must have done it. The atheist scientist argues that there is no evidence for the existence of God; he then goes one step beyond science: if God doesn't exist, by inference chance did it. I repeat: the choice is between two unbelievable theories, and there's no objective scientific evidence for either of them.-DHW: You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!
TONY: It is faith insomuch as I have not directly observed God. You are correct in that. I have also never directly observed an atom, or a strand of DNA. [...] Instead, I must rely on the reports and interpretations of data that other people that have, who may or may not have their own agenda or bias that is slanting their views. So much of our lives is relegated to trusting someone else's subjective interpretation. -It's a source of comfort to me that you so often echo my own words. On 18 January in my response to you under "Scientist's Approach to Creation", I pointed out that "all of us on this forum are dependent for our information on the work of so-called experts. If there is a general consensus, we tend to accept their findings. [...] This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind." -TONY: I am always surprised when [subjective interpretation] is thrown up as a defense. There is no response to that argument, and there never can be.-In turn I am always surprised if, when there is controversy, subjective interpretation is used to attack open-mindedness! 
---