I think the recent Supreme Court case proves my point about how Pragmatic interpretation gives the court the ability to legislate free of the congressional process. Attempts to pass legislation like the Equality Act have failed repeatedly in Congress, showing that both sides feel including gender and sexual orientation were not intended to be read into the word 'sex'. However, the Supreme Court has decided that cultural trends allow them to change the law (legislate) without going through the proper channels. If anyone is pleased because the Equality Act was basically codified into law without congressional approval, remember the Court can just as easily legislate -- I mean "interpret" -- laws you don't agree with too.
I just want to quick address a statement in your judgment:
“Con manipulates the stats. Claiming by deduction 60% of women view reproduction as a priority for marriage. A made-up stat by Con. Tsk Tsk.”
I think it is wrong to say this was a stat manipulation or a made-up stat, not as a matter of opinion but of fact. I first pointed out how the stat was completely irrelevant to the debate. Then, I made a hypothetical argument (led by the statement “Just for the sake of argument though, let's say that 40%...”) showing how even the falsely inflated number worked in my favor because that still means 60% of women have children, leaving a majority who prioritized reproduction. Even my opponent agreed with this assertion in round 2, I quote:
“I will agree that more than 60% of the women want to reproduce”
I deduced this number because if 40% of women are childless, it seems self-evident that 60% would have children. If both me and my opponent agree upon the truthfulness of the assertion then I do not see how I can be guilty of manipulating the statistic - which was irrelevant and misleading in the first place - or of making one up.
I mostly point this out so that any future potential voters might allow this defense of my argument. You are entitled to your opinion on your judgment and I actually appreciate you taking the time to vote, even if it is not in my favor.
Not sure if this is what you are going for, but it seems the topic of this debate is about the frequency of spanking and not the effectiveness of it. If you are saying it should be done less, you are still saying it should be done. This would be conceding that it is an effective parenting tool. I think it would be hard to measure how effective the overall amount of spanking in general is since each child is different. Some children need more discipline while some need more compassion.
I'll refrain from arguing from a religious perspective for the purpose of this debate, as I think there is compelling evidence from other sources as well.
Could you provide one saying or teaching of the disciples that was in disagreement with Jesus’ teachings and that was also not rebuked by Jesus? You seem to think that the followers of Jesus in the Bible somehow had completely different teaching than Him but I haven’t found any that exist. Even if John 3:16 was a commentary by John and not a direct quote of Jesus, Jesus taught about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Again, I will admit that horrible acts have been committed by people throughout history in the name of Christianity. I will also outrightly condemn them because I think it can be clearly and plainly shown why they were not in line with Scripture. However, Jesus did demand people to turn from their evil ways and believe in Him alone or be condemned to hell for those evil deeds.
Question 1: That’s not a completely inaccurate statement by any means, but I would not personally use that generalization to describe the Reformation since it had more to do with the authority of Scripture and the nature of salvation. There is an aspect of a personal connection with God, but it is a connection with the God revealed in the Bible, not a god of your own personal creation. He has given the tools of reason and understanding so people could understand Scripture, which is the most trustworthy testimony we have. He has also set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) as a “tool” of understanding. Don’t you ever have thoughts about what will happen when you did, or if there is an afterlife?
Question 2: I appreciate you sharing that. I definitely wasn’t just asking as a way to debunk it and somehow prove Christianity to be true, I was actually interested to hear your thoughts on it, so thanks.
When I talk about objective morality being the result of theism, I just mean that each particular theistic system would have its own objective standard for humanity to follow. In my case, I am arguing for Christian theism as revealed by the Bible as the objective standard. I also haven’t seen any moral philosophies independent of a god that don’t end up being subjective in nature, but I haven’t done an exhaustive study so perhaps I’m mistaken.
The problem I see in your posts is that you seem to be appealing to objective morality in your defense of subjective morality. Let me point out why I think this. First, you are trying to point out why the Bible doesn’t fit with a “good God” but that presupposes that there is a concept of good to be appealed to.
The same could be said when you stated, “a few hiccups aside, we have been slowing marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy.” Why is more equality and empathy desirable, and how can our subjective morality improve? That would imply that there is a standard which we should be working toward, which would have to be an objective standard that contains equality and empathy. To say that any one moral system is better than another necessarily implies that it is closer to the ideal objective moral system.
Now, I have pointed out what I believe to be an inconsistency with the position that morality is subjective. Let me put it in a practical form: I am personally not satisfied with saying the only reason to condemn the Holocaust was because essentially, America came to a different result than Germany in their vote on whether it was acceptable to exterminate Jews. This doesn’t automatically make me right and I have actually been hoping to hear arguments that speak to this point in my time on this site.
You seem to be saying that chance has nothing to do with it because there is only one possible outcome, a 1:1 ratio. The problem is you are not statistically guaranteed one particular outcome when multiple outcomes are possible such as in a lottery, and you are certainly not guaranteed the most unlikely outcome. If you flip a coin, you could get 100 tails in a row. It’s highly unlikely but statistically possible. And with time and chance, it keeps becoming more likely that you will actually get an even mix of heads and tails rather than a continual result of all tails.
This is a simplistic analogy compared to the events in the universe leading to life. But in the same way that it is highly unlikely to get 100 tails in a row, it is even more unlikely that a tiny ball of matter with no known origin underwent a big bang, formed galaxies stars and planets, and one planet in particular that formed with the conditions for human life. The problem is that life coming about isn’t a probable mix of heads and tails. It requires getting tails every single time for every condition necessary for life (orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth). If you get even one heads in the process of our galaxy and earth being formed, then no life. Or, what if a giant meteorite blasted the earth apart? That’s a different outcome that does not produce life and follows the laws of nature. Also, were the laws of nature a result of the big bang? Are they an eternal constant or could they have been different? Now I’m not forcing you to answer each question, I’m just trying to show that I don’t think we can say that there is only one possible outcome from a naturalist perspective.
I will admit that it would also be fair to say a designer could fit any situation, but so could natural formation. The question then comes down to evidence and probability.
I am also curious, do you consider all mathematical evidence empirical or philosophical?
Re: Bible
Don’t worry, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief. In fact, I would say that is both constitutional and biblical!
You stated that one reason Christianity is illogical and depressing is because of human susceptibility to sin. But whether you believe in God or not, the same amount of evil is happening in the world. Do you find it less depressing knowing that violence, murder, rape, torture, death, and all the other terrible things are just meaningless events in an uncaring universe?
I will just mention that Jesus is the founder of Christianity so it would be ironic for Him to be appalled by His own teachings. Admittedly, many people have used the incorrectly used the Bible to justify evil things throughout history. However, Jesus was not simply concerned with embracing people and seeking their improvement with support and love. He taught about hell more than anyone else in the entire Bible (Matthew 13:40-43), and He was concerned about people repenting of their sin and believing in Him alone for forgiveness (Mark 1:15; John 3:16-18).
I do have two questions for you if you don’t mind me asking. You said you have an idea of a god that is unique since it does not fit any of the “varied works of men,” and you live by the “good values” of this god. Obviously I don’t have a full view of your beliefs and don’t want to presume so I’m genuinely curious: would you say that you are creating your own personal god based on your beliefs, or even holding up your personal thoughts and values as “god”?
Second, you obviously don’t believe in the Christian God and you have brought up a few disputes or disagreements with the claims of the Bible. I would be interested to know then, what you would say that your biggest problem or disagreement with Christianity is? Perhaps a different way to ask would be what is the biggest reason you don’t believe in the God of the Bible?
Re: Morality
I don’t think anyone lacks a worldview because worldviews don’t require a god, it’s simply how you view the world. Now I don’t think the distinction between “belief in no god” or “lack of belief in a god” is really all that important unless we get on to a topic such as how to determine morality. The reason is that subjective morality is consistent with atheism/naturalism (standard set by humans), and objective morality is consistent with theism (standard set by God). It seems you would agree with this at least to some degree? Either way, I think that subjective morality is a scary way to live because that means that right and wrong is ultimately determined by who has the bigger stick. A dilemma seems to rise if I were to ask you if the Nazi extermination of Jews was wrong. To say yes would be objectively imposing your morals on another society, but to say no carries serious implications for your moral standard.
Even the fundamentals that you listed such as stealing and murder cannot be assumed in subjective morality because there is no universal agreement on what stealing and murder are, or if they are actually wrong. Don’t you think it’s at least a little unsettling to think that something as important as personhood is a moveable standard that can include an individual in one society, and exclude them in another?
I’m not sure exactly what you meant by the “dominance of atheism” being established by our forefathers so this may not exactly answer that premise, but the founding fathers established our government with the principle that humans have inalienable rights given to them by God. The government does not grant rights or take them away, it only recognizes and protects them. At least that was the original intent. The basis of our constitutional rights actually presuppose God, while also not allowing the government to legislate personal belief.
Re: Intelligent Design
The problem with fitting the design story into all scenarios is that you are creating hypothetical realities to argue against actual reality. We don’t live in a universe where life and existence are near certainty and there is no reason to think that a universe such as that exists. The fact is that the fine tuning of our universe (whether by chance or design) is our reality. The intelligent design argument says that the universe is too precise to allow for random structuring to be a reasonable explanation. So really, the only scenario that the designer story fits is one where life exists because of the improbability of it. As for your biology example, I would say that many different systems or animal forms, rather than uniformity, would be a stronger evidence for randomness than design. Why would uniformity and consistency be used to describe anything structured at random, especially something as complex as the universe?
Now I’m specifically curious as to whether you think that intelligent design is scientific. You disagreed, but the arguments you applied to this theory are not the ones I had in mind so let me elaborate. The fact is that people have looked at the universe and made empirical observations about the requirements and improbability of life on earth. Even the slightest differences in the orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth would make the existence of life impossible. These are scientific, empirical observations. People have derived mathematical probabilities of the existence of life from these observations. Whether they are right or wrong, I am wondering how arriving at a conclusion based on empirical observations and mathematical probabilities is not scientific.
If you still don’t agree that it is scientific, then what “positive evidence” would be required for it to be considered scientific?
Re: The Bible
I specifically said that archaeology has only confirmed and not controverted biblical events, locations, and people. This does not mean that archaeological evidence has been found for every detail of the Bible. But there have been over 25,000 archaeological finds which confirm the narrative of the Bible, and no archaeological finds that contradict it. I should also mention that a lack of evidence does not disprove something, it only proves that we don’t have evidence.
A single eyewitness testimony may be weak courtroom evidence, but we have four different records of eyewitness testimonies in the four gospels. They also claim that there were at least 500 other eyewitnesses, and none of them seemed to have contradicted the appearance of Jesus after His death given the massive growth of Christianity after this event. Corroborated eyewitness testimony is actually a very strong source of evidence. In “Cold-Case Christianity” J. Warner Wallace examines the gospel accounts using the same investigative techniques he uses as a cold case detective to show why the accounts are reliable.
While holy books would seek preservation, none compare to the Bible. I would agree that mass appeal does not signify truth. However, it does give a truth claim reason to be honestly examined. That is why I have read the Quran and studied the claims of Islam since that is major monotheistic religion. I think the claims are false, but I also don’t want to misrepresent what their book actually teaches. I would ask critics of the Bible to show the same intellectual diligence in actually reading the book they are critiquing so as not to misrepresent it. This is just a general statement and not an accusation by any means towards you.
The manuscript evidence is also not a direct validation of the truth of the Bible. Rather, it shows the authenticity of the Bible as an ancient document and the accuracy with which it has been preserved.
Re: Life
Let me address a specific point here. I would agree that science alone cannot give us a definition of personhood. However, you have said that the attribution of personhood should be the subjective decision of a society. So what if Society A attributes personhood at conception, and Society B attributes personhood at birth. Would you say then that it is wrong for someone in Society A to perform an abortion, but it is not wrong for someone in Society B to do so?
If that is the case, what if Society C attributes personhood at 2 years of age? Is it then alright for them to dispose of non-persons that are less than 2 years old? You can probably see where I’m going with this, but I would like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any grounds to condemn the subjective decision of a society not to attribute personhood to certain ages such as those under 2 years old.
And yes, my worldview is a personal thing. But isn’t yours as well? Also, atheism is actually a minority view both in America and the world compared to theism. So how do we decide whose worldview is correct, and why should a minority atheistic worldview take precedence over a theistic one?
Re: Scientific Method
I may need you to clarify exactly what you mean between natural design vs intelligent design as fitting certain situations. The whole point of intelligent design is that there seems to be a fine tuning in the universe so precise that it seems virtually impossible for the conditions necessary for human life to exist to come about by natural processes. To state it closer to your terms, the odds that natural design brought about our specific circumstances are so astronomically low that the only plausible explanation seems to be that there must have been an external source or mind orchestrating it all.
But I guess my main point was not to prove the theory of intelligent design or even say you have to agree with it, but rather to see if you believed it was scientific since it uses empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe, even though we can’t physically observe the designer.
To verify the authenticity of the claims of Scripture, we would use a method similar to that of a courtroom (examine evidence to reach a conclusion). So no, I would not consider it a scientific method of verification. But I also don’t hold science as the supreme source of objective knowledge. The gospel accounts in the Bible can be verified by corroborated eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events (mainly, the resurrection) that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies surrounding the person of Jesus. The authenticity of the historical documents can be shown by an overwhelming amount of manuscript evidence compared to any other ancient writing. Archaeology has provided precise evidence of biblical accounts, while also not controverting anything in the Bible.
Body+Soul
There is a distinction between human souls and animal “souls” but it is drawn completely from Scripture. The simplest way to understand it would be that humans are made in the image of God and have an eternal soul. Animals simply have life (the word literally means “wind, breath, or life”) and that individual animal life is also translated into English from Hebrew as “soul.”
Re: Life
You said previously that science is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. You have also said (and I would agree) that there is no real consensus on a definition of life or death. There also seems to be no real definition for identifying autonomous organisms in a meaningful way that would inform an issue like abortion. It seems to me that the supreme source of objective knowledge (in this case science) should be able to give us more clarity on these issues than it does. What source should we then go to in solving issues like abortion if science cannot give us this objective knowledge?
I never created a universal need for technical definitions, nor does my worldview require them. The keywords I would use are “definition” and “understanding.” God has already defined what life is, and our categorizations are either right or wrong compared to that. The problem we have is that He doesn’t necessarily give a technical definition, but He does give us enough knowledge for understanding what life is. That is why I can say a human is life even if I can’t be certain about a virus. Personally, I would say viruses are not life, but I might be biased since I’m still recovering from a mass extermination of cold viruses.
A naturalistic worldview does not have the luxury of an external source of objective knowledge, so it is up to people to ultimately determine how they want to categorize life and death. Science is only able to identify what falls within its definition and nothing more. If the definition of life doesn’t include viruses, then viruses are either not life or the definition must be changed. If a definition of death somehow includes a patient in a coma, that organism is now dead or the definition must be changed. If science cannot precisely determine what is or isn’t life based on its definition, then it is not the supreme source of objective truth and we must appeal to some other authority.
Re: Dalton and scientific theories
Let me see if I can point out where I think we may have reached some common ground on this. I agree with you that it is very difficult to find a theory established by the peer-reviewed scientific method that has been proven wrong in its fundamental principles. It seems you would agree that the original claim needs to be adjusted or given a bit more clarification to account for modifications to theories, especially as technological advancement provides further insight to them.
Does that seem like a fair assessment?
Re: Scientific Method
I don’t think we need to claim ignorance, I just think we need to recognize that there are conclusions based on observation (acid-base reactions) and conclusions based on assumption (big bang) because the event itself cannot be observed. But since you seem to not place any distinction between these two types of conclusions, would you also say that intelligent design is a perfectly rational and scientific theory, even if we can’t observe the designer?
Re: Life
1. That is a good observation to distinguish between a person and the parts of a person. That was probably carelessness on my part not to do so. We would likely differ somewhat on how to distinguish these though. I believe there is a material and immaterial part to humans. The combination of a body and soul I would refer to as “life.” The individual components would consist of living cells. I make this distinction because I would consider a body without a soul dead, even if some part of it were still functioning. A heart transplant would be a good example. The donor is no longer considered a “life” even though the living cells in his heart continue to function in the recipient. But as far as your claims that any living cell is life, you still haven’t clarified your standard for determining what is “life.” For instance, do you make any distinction between an organism and an individual organ?
2. You're right that science itself doesn't make moral judgments. However, some of our scientific conclusions inevitably affect morality. If all the things you mentioned in point #1 are considered life, then how do we distinguish what it means to end a life? How you answer that scientifically will affect your moral beliefs.
3. Please explain.
4. I would argue that the Christian God as revealed in the Bible is the standard of all morality and the source for our understanding of life, and there is very good reason to hold this position. But that will get us back into religion. I’m happy to go there if you’d like though.
Re: Scientific Method
I may have been careless in my explanation. I agree that air bubbles and tree rings are a part of empirical science because we can observe them. Ancient atmospheres would be part of theoretical science since we cannot observe them, even if the evidence we use is empirical. Theoretical science is an assumption that requires empirical science. Empirical science is an observation that does not require theoretical science.
I posed the analogy for the hopes of clarifying my point. Obviously I didn’t achieve that so let’s just forget the analogy and just look at a chemical formula. If you wanted to test an acid base reaction, how would you do it? Well, you would probably start by writing out the reaction on paper and making sure that your reactants and products balance. But you probably wouldn’t stop there because you want to verify that the reactants actually do what you think they are going to do. So you go to the lab, observe the reaction, measure the results, etc. The acid base reaction itself is the “event” that you can observe, measure, and repeat.
So my distinction could be viewed in this way then. Writing out the acid base reaction on paper is theoretical science. Once you actually carry out the experiment, it becomes empirical science. If you never actually carry out the experiment, or you are unable to do so, it remains theoretical science (only done “on paper”).
I read too fast and misunderstood your statement about changing your intro regarding limitation statements, thank you for clarifying.
Here is a source for isobars (https://www.periodic-table.org/what-is-isobar-nuclide-definition/). They are just isotopes of two different elements that have the same atomic mass.
Dalton’s original theory said that the ratios of the elements were whole numbers (1:1, 1:2, 2:3, etc.) so it’s not that each element has a whole number, but the ratios do. 12:22:11 consists of whole numbers, but does not consist of whole number ratios (no even ration between 12 and 22 for instance). Here is one of the sites I looked at for this (https://www.chemteam.info/AtomicStructure/Dalton.html). And yes, I googled all this. I haven’t exactly kept up on my chemistry principles since college!
Also, Dalton’s original theory did not say “atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other propertied.” He said they “are identical” in those ways. That's a very important distinction. The discovery of isotopes of the same element with different atomic masses disproved that statement. Adding the word “nearly” is a later correction to the error Dalton made.
You have still left me in a bit of a conundrum as far as showing a scientific theory that has been disproved or debunked. Are you saying then that as long as any concept in that theory remains accurate, the theory is not considered disproved?
Life:
This might perhaps bring us back to the religion vs. science discussion that we started on. I think that we do need to have a clear understanding about what life is and I don’t believe that science alone can give us one, or at least an adequate one. The reason that clear borders are needed is because a simple definition of life is the difference between 500,000 clumps of cells being removed from women each year, or 500,000 brutal murders of children each year.
Now science is not my authority or my supreme source of all knowledge, so my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential. I know that humans are alive and have inherent value over plants and animals because God has revealed that in the Bible. I know that life begins in the womb because the Bible teaches that. I know that plants and animals are alive, but they can also be killed to aid in our survival because of our value over them. So whatever definition I come up with MUST encompass those truths.
From an atheistic perspective, how we categorize life is completely up to us. Science actually has nothing to do with it. We just have to set the goal post and science will then tell us what falls within our categorization of life. The problem is that even subtle changes to a definition of life could then exclude certain humans from that definition. If we decide that life is determined by consciousness or responsiveness, then we could destroy babies, people in comas, etc., because they are not “alive” and science has no bearing on telling us the correctness of this definition of life. If we decide that life begins outside the womb for mammals, that has serious implications. For humans in particular, if we decide that life begins with a heartbeat, we just have to empirically observe when the heartbeat begins. That's why I think a clear understanding of life is important.
Scientific Method:
You can pick apart any analogy with technical details. I gave it to help illustrate and clarify my point, not prove it. Let’s maybe distinguish then between empirical science and theoretical science (I am not putting too much weight on these adjectives, just making a distinction). Empirical science would be the observation of events (let’s say combustion) where we can see it and measure it. There’s really no need for assumption because we can continually burn things to observe that event.
On the other hand, theoretical science involves proposing an assumption that requires observations from empirical science. To use your example, we would not have a clue what ancient atmospheres look like without information from empirical science. We can observe trees growing and measure current CO2 levels. If there is ever any doubt, we can just grow a tree and watch how CO2 affects it. All of the empirical evidence obtained in this way is falsifiable by observable, measurable, repeatable methods. Now if we take our mountain of evidence that is all falsifiable by observable methods, and we make a conclusion that is not observable (the condition of ancient atmospheres), we have just made an assumption based on our empirical evidence. So the assumption (ancient atmospheres) could be categorized as theoretical, while the evidence (tree rings/CO2, ice core samples) is empirical.
I am trying to be as broad as possible to at least see if we can agree that there is a distinction in methodology between empirical and theoretical science. Again, those are somewhat arbitrary terms that I’m just using to describe the distinction.
All atoms of a given element are identical in mass and properties-Disproven by isotopes
Atoms of different elements are different in all respects-Disproved by isobars
Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios-Disproven by complex organic compounds (C12-H22-O11)
This is not to discredit Dalton’s incredible contribution to atomic theory. However, your statement was that expansion on a theory means that nothing is disproven, corrected, or changed, and the discoveries “are as accurate today as ever.” I have just shown you major parts of Dalton’s theory were disproven, corrected, and changed.
Re: life
I am not backing away at all because I am not the one defending science, you are. The point I was trying to get at was that at if there was a time where there was nothing but non-living material in the universe, then at some point life had to come from non-life. Something is either alive or its not. If we take cell theory, it states that all living cells come from pre-existing living cells. By your own admission, a key element of a scientific theory is that it “explains all past events, and predicts future events.” At some point, a living cell did not come from a pre-existing living cell, so the theory does not explain the rise of life from non-life (a past event). Plus, if we can’t define life, then we can’t define what a living cell is which would also render the theory useless.
Re: scientific theories debunked
Dalton's atomic theory is an example of an expanded or modified theory that disproved certain points. That doesn't negate the great insight and correct concepts he provided, but it was a scientifically established theory that was proven wrong in some aspects. Your definition of expansion does not involve any disproving, correcting, or changing, which is what happened with this theory.
Re: scientific method
Let’s take a simpler example of the scientific method. If we use a plain old combustion formula, we can observe how the combination of a hydrocarbon and oxygen react to form CO2 and water. We can’t just assume that anytime we see CO2 and water that combustion must have occurred. So combustion is the event, CO2 and water are the result. We can repeat the event of combustion, observe it, and measure the quantities involved.
Now imagine if I was the first one to make a hypothesis that included the combustion chemical equation. Then, I asked you to verify it and see if you could disprove it, but to do so you could not actually test out the combustion process to see if it worked. You could only test the theory on paper, or you could observe a sample of carbon dioxide and water that may or may not have resulted from a combustion reaction. This is a generalized example but I hope it helps to illustrate my point. To carry out the scientific method, you would have to test the event (combustion) and observe the results (CO2 and water). If you simply observe the results without ever observing the event, you are forced to make assumptions about the event and assumptions are not empirical evidence.
So perhaps it would be better if you explained to me how you could carry out the scientific method on a combustion reaction without ever performing an experiment on or observing, measuring, and repeating the actual combustion process.
You made a statement about ALL scientifically established theories that included expansion. Are you saying there hasn't been a single expansion on a scientific theory that proved some part of the original theory wrong? If that's not what you meant, then I'm not really sure what your standard is for "debunking" a scientifically established theory, or even what you consider a "scientifically established theory" for that matter.
Again, I am not stating there is not evidence that supports the big bang theory. What I am saying is that the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable, please explain to me how it can be established USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
As far as defining life, you're the one who said we can't say for sure what life is, not me. If you're main concern is a scientific systematic categorization of things, and you can't give an accurate categorization for something as important as life, then I'm not sure that science is the "most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively." But let's maybe move back to the original point for a moment. If everything started as non-living material and there is now life, that means at some point non-life became life. It really doesn't matter what you call intermediary stages or how much time you add to the scenario. If you believe that at some point, there was no living material in the universe, then the fact remains that living cells must have come from non-living material, right?
Well "expanded" is just another way to say "it was wrong and had to be changed." But regarding the big bang, it is a hypothetical scenario that cannot be repeated and was not observed. Again, you still have not told me how you can scientifically prove an event that is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. Sure we can observe the uniform expansion of the universe. How do you then prove, using the scientific method, that uniform expansion was caused by the big bang?
Well if we can't even define what life is, we have a whole lot more of a problem than debunking scientific theories. Are you alive? If so, by what standard? If you can't provide a scientific definition of life to scientifically prove humans are alive, should murder no longer be a crime?
Re: big bang
Again, I am not disputing that there is supporting evidence for the big bang. We can make scientific observations about current conditions that support the hypothesis, but the event of the big bang itself is purely theoretical and cannot be observed, measured, or repeated. Do you have a different scientific method that does not require something to be observable, measurable, or repeatable? And you did not answer my question about how to disprove something of this nature.
Re: biogenesis
Perhaps we should take a step back from categorizations and deal with general principles first. Do you believe that life can be derived from non-life or non-living material?
As for your statements about the Big Bang being scientific, you said that we can logically assume that it happened a certain way. Logical assumptions like this are not observable, measurable, repeatable science. You have just stepped into the realm of philosophy. I am not disagreeing that the assumption makes sense or that support can be drawn from scientific observation of current conditions in the universe (the light of the star can be observed because it exists in the present). But you cannot observe the Big Bang event, nor can it be repeated. So perhaps a good question would be, if a hypothesis (in this case, the Big Bang) cannot be directly observed, measured, or repeated, how can you disprove it scientifically?
As far as failed scientific assertions, it’s interesting that you mentioned abiogenesis as discarded. I can disprove one of two theories quite easily. You cannot hold to both the theory of evolution and the theory of biogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis). Evolution requires abiogenesis. Unless space dust is somehow alive.
My statement that science is about “a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven” and your statement that it is an “undisproven hypothesis” seem to be the same thing to me. My point is that even if the hypothesis has been subjected to an international peer review community, the ability to test it is only as good as the tools we have to do so. Think about astronomy. Peoples’ understanding changed dramatically after Galileo came onto the scene with his telescope. Then the Hubble telescope shattered even more limitations on our power of observation, allowing us to become more accurate in our understanding of the physical universe. However, we still have limitations on what we can be confident about, and we cannot say for sure what future technology and events will reveal to us. When it comes to maintaining an “undisproven hypothesis,” unless you can say with 100% certainty that no amount of observation and no future technology will disprove it, then it is not proven. We just have a varying degrees of certainty that it is true.
Re: God
You have gone straight to the conclusion that the biblical account is just a “simplified narrative…dumbing things down for immature children.”
Have you actually taken the time to look into the arguments of scholarly creationists? Can you name any scholarly literature you have read arguing from the creationist perspective that you haven’t immediately dismissed as childish? If you think that the arguments from this perspective are simply, “Well, we can’t explain that so it must have been God via magic,” that shows a serious misrepresentation of people with different views than you.
Your explanation for the beginning of the universe in comment #24 was this:
“The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitimate source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang…Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer…”
To summarize your explanation: the best guess right now is the Big Bang theory, which is the current contender in a long line of failed theories that science has given us. “We have zero clue what was before, during and for a few fractions of a second just after,” with your best guess being the unsatisfactory answer of infinite regression. But, you know for sure that it isn’t my thing because I’m just an immature child who has to resort to saying God did it via magic.
The problem with this argument is that it isn’t actually scientific. It is a philosophical argument based on mathematics and reason. The scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Observable: Can we observe the events of the Big Bang Theory happening? Nope
Measurable: Can we quantify anything about the Big Bang Theory through experimentation? Nope
Repeatable: Can we repeat the Big Bang Theory? Only if you buy all the seasons on DVD, otherwise nope
Re: Science
It seems as though you believe that science is the end of all knowledge, and that it is superior to all other forms of knowledge/logic/etc. Would you say that is an accurate description of your belief? Or perhaps you could clarify what preeminence you give to science.
Also, the fact still remains that science is about a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven, just as you stated. This is different than it being proven. You seem to downplay the fallibility of human knowledge. A survey of failed “scientific” assertions throughout history should give us a very humbling view about what we can be certain about.
As far as a literal creation account, it would be hard to argue it from a purely scientific standpoint. If God was involved by working supernaturally to bring about the world and everything in it, He would be working outside the realm of natural laws as we understand them. That doesn't mean creationists just get a free pass at having to deal with any issues, but it means that if God could do the impossible by creating something out of nothing, He would also be capable of keeping plants alive for a day before He created the sun if He so chose. So He did leave a lot of details out, He didn't include a peer-reviewed article on classifications of species, but I do not believe that He misled us or gave us false information just to keep us happy.
Now I would say that if the Bible is true, it is actually a huge contribution to various fields of science. We would understand such things as these:
The origin of the universe
That all humans had a single common ancestor, Adam
Geological impacts of a global flood
Impact of sin on psychology
Distinction between material and immaterial side of humans
Unnatural phenomenon of disease and death (effects of the fall)
Admittedly, some of these would be difficult to test using the scientific method, but they could still be viewed as empirical data involving observations about the natural world. I'm not asking you to concede the validity of the Bible but I would like to ask a hypothetical question: IF we somehow found out that the Bible was true in its claims that I listed above, wouldn't that revolutionize our understanding of science?
Sorry for the delayed response. I had a particularly extensive argument due in a debate and I was busy with other stuff. I actually don't have a problem with bias in experiments, as long as you try to not let it affect your results. As far as science proving anything, I think it would be better to say that science helps us more accurately observe and explain the world around us. We have varying degrees of certainty about what we know from a scientific standpoint. However, that knowledge is always subject to change based on new evidence. If something is subject to change, it is not really proven. We just have a greater degree of certainty for that which we accept or reject based on our findings.
You're right, the creation account is written with the assumption of "this is how it happened." Genesis 1:1 is a simple statement and then chapters 1-2 provide more details on that. You're also right that the creation account doesn't come with a full analysis of chemical processes or mathematical equations to make it technical or "scientific" as we would use the word today. However, we should be careful not to force our contemporary ideas of science to say that ancient observations and explanations do not even count as science.
I realized I made a mistake on one of my links for sources in Section B of my response:
"The best guess we have on when the prophecy was fulfilled is King Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt in 568 BC (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27927044?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, see page 187-188, view with free account)"
This is the correct link to the article I meant to cite. My apologies.
I will just mention that the Old Testament contains an extensive history of the nation of Israel, including ancestral records. Those portions do actually claim to be historical records and can be cross-referenced with extra-biblical sources. But since the historical aspect doesn't interest you, let's move on.
I think we at least have some common ground on the point of the Bible being primarily, in a general sense, a moral guide or a book on how to live. *digital high-five* let's move on.
Since science is where your interest is, let me make two comments that you may be more inclined to interact with. First, science cannot "prove" anything. The mere notion is an impossibility. So if your primary source of belief and truth is from science, then you are basing your belief and truth on a system that has no way of definitively proving anything, no absolutes, and is in a constant state of change. I would genuinely like to hear any thoughts that you have on this idea, or clarification on what informs your beliefs in addition to science.
Here is a point that may pique your interest and show a biblical contribution to science. Many people believed that the universe had no beginning until the early 1900's. However, the discovery that the universe was expanding was evidence that the universe did have a beginning. Was there anyone who hypothesized this theory? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." While you may not find the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 very convincing, it is at least interesting that the Bible has made the bold claim that the universe has a beginning, even when "science" disagreed.
No worries. I know there are far more important things in life than posting debate arguments online so sorry if I seemed like I was getting on your case! You definitely made me have to think through my position and I hope you consider looking at any of those resources I recommended. Thanks for the debate!
I can also address the science and history issue, but I just need some clarification. You seem to be implying that the Bible should not be viewed as historical if it does not contain a comprehensive record of the history of ancient Rome for instance. If so, I think that is an unfair standard that would not be placed on any other book. For example, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg would not have to have a comprehensive history of American politics, slavery, and a list of all Civil War battles. You would only expect it to list pertinent people and events, and that those events accurately correspond with that time period.
In the same way, the Bible is in agreement with historical records. Many people, places, and events accurately correspond with the historical record of those time periods. I can definitely make a case for its agreement with history and science, but you would be correct if you said that the Bible is not intended to deal with those topics comprehensively. So, before I address the issue of history and science, let me ask this. Does the Bible have to give a comprehensive detailing of science and history to be taken seriously? If so, how much science and history must be explained before it can be taken seriously?
If you are saying that you don't think the Bible is God giving complete knowledge to the world, I would agree with you. Only God has complete knowledge. If we could obtain complete knowledge, then we would also be omniscient as God is. However, just because we do not have complete knowledge of something does not mean we cannot understand it. I don't have a complete knowledge of an internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean I can't have any understanding of what a car is or how it works.
I would also agree that the Bible was not intended to reveal the secrets of creation. We can see this in Job 38-41 where God gives a scathing rebuke to Job to show that God has an infinite knowledge of the world He created, and Job knows next to nothing compared to Him. Again, God knows all, we know some.
I think I could also agree with you in a general sense that the Bible could be summed up as a book about how to live properly and why, but I think we would mean two different things. The way you describe it would actually be a better fit for the Mosaic Law than the entire Bible. God gave Israel the law to show them how to live. Much of it was a form of "do this" or "don't do that." But giving us a perfect moral standard doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that every one of us has broken the Law and will be punished on Judgment Day. So if you stop at just being a list of "do this" and "don't do that," then we'd all be justly condemned to hell. It has to go one step further.
So to sum up, I would agree that it is a moral guide that actually shows us our absolute inability to live up to God's standard, and points us to our utter need to trust in Jesus to pay our fine so that we can escape hell.
-They all provide a firsthand account of His life, death, and resurrection. Why? For the specific purpose of conveying the message of “the gospel” to mankind:
“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)
-The Bible is intended to draw a response from the hearer:
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)
First and foremost, the Bible is God revealing to us our problem (“sin”), and pointing us to our solution (repent and believe in Jesus, or “faith”). After a person does that, it does serve as a sort of moral guide, but more so than just a book of rules. It has little value as a moral guide to those who are “unsaved” because our natural tendency as humans is toward evil (lying, cheating, stealing, envy, etc.), so we wouldn’t want to follow it anyway. Therefore, I don’t think we can simply classify it as a moral guide, at least according to its own claims. Therefore, I don’t think it fits into an either/or categorization like that.
You’re right. I see in trying to be somewhat brief, I did not clearly answer the question. It is also hard to summarize the purpose of the Bible in a short time because it actually has many, even strictly according to its own claims. I think we need to start by making a distinction between “the Bible” and the “books” in the Bible. The Bible as a whole is simply a collection of ancient documents. Some even refer to it as a library rather than a book. The “books” of the Bible are the individual documents written over the course of about 1,500 years by about 40 different authors. Each book has an individual purpose for being written. For example, Psalms was the written record of the songs of Israel. However, each book and its individual purpose also points to the main purpose of the Bible as a whole. In a general sense, it is God’s revelation to humans about who He is and who we are. It reveals a personal God who can be known because He chooses to reveal Himself to us.
With that distinction, let’s just focus on the Jesus narrative to define a specific purpose. This narrative is most clearly found in the four gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They each give a unique perspective on the life of Christ. In Luke 1:1-4, Luke clearly states he is carefully recording eyewitness accounts. A later letter by John also states he proclaims an eyewitness testimony about Jesus (1 John 1:1-2).
It certainly won't shut off debate. I enjoy a good logical discussion. I just find it helpful to have a general idea of the viewpoint people are arguing from to give a more meaningful answer.
The Bible was not intended to be either of those. I would argue that the Bible is in agreement with history, archaeology, and even science (outside of the recorded supernatural events, which by definition defy natural laws as we understand them). I would also argue that it contains a better standard for interpersonal relationships than any other religion/worldview/etc.
However, the Bible has one central message. It all points to the person, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Now don't lose me here because this is usually where people tune out, but I'll try to briefly sum up the main purpose that the entire Bible points to:
Jesus, the Son of God, became a man and died on a cross to pay the penalty we deserve for all the evil things that we do. He was resurrected from the dead and will judge all mankind. Those who recognize they have committed evil acts against God, ask for forgiveness and mercy, and trust that it is only Jesus of the Bible who can save them will spend eternity in heaven. All others will spend eternity in hell. At least, that's what it says.
To put it another way, it gives answers to those four nagging questions:
Where did we come from? --> We were created by God somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years ago, depending on who you ask
Why are we here? --> We were created to worship and glorify God
What is wrong with the world? --> Through Adam's evil committed against God, humanity "fell" and everyone became inclined toward evil and is under the wrath of God
Where are we going? --> Heaven or hell on judgment day
Let me know if you were trying to go in a different direction with that question, but I think that is the best answer for the purpose of the Bible.
Thank you for commenting. I would be interested to know if you have a religious background that informs your explanation to maybe get a better idea of your thought.
If that is the case, what defines a human? At what point between apes and modern man did Adam receive a soul? This is of vital importance because humans have a higher intrinsic value than animals. If we cannot see someone's soul, we have to be able to distinguish between them. This is easy to do now, but what happens when humans evolve into something else? At what point will they no longer be considered human and stop receiving souls?
I think the recent Supreme Court case proves my point about how Pragmatic interpretation gives the court the ability to legislate free of the congressional process. Attempts to pass legislation like the Equality Act have failed repeatedly in Congress, showing that both sides feel including gender and sexual orientation were not intended to be read into the word 'sex'. However, the Supreme Court has decided that cultural trends allow them to change the law (legislate) without going through the proper channels. If anyone is pleased because the Equality Act was basically codified into law without congressional approval, remember the Court can just as easily legislate -- I mean "interpret" -- laws you don't agree with too.
I just want to quick address a statement in your judgment:
“Con manipulates the stats. Claiming by deduction 60% of women view reproduction as a priority for marriage. A made-up stat by Con. Tsk Tsk.”
I think it is wrong to say this was a stat manipulation or a made-up stat, not as a matter of opinion but of fact. I first pointed out how the stat was completely irrelevant to the debate. Then, I made a hypothetical argument (led by the statement “Just for the sake of argument though, let's say that 40%...”) showing how even the falsely inflated number worked in my favor because that still means 60% of women have children, leaving a majority who prioritized reproduction. Even my opponent agreed with this assertion in round 2, I quote:
“I will agree that more than 60% of the women want to reproduce”
I deduced this number because if 40% of women are childless, it seems self-evident that 60% would have children. If both me and my opponent agree upon the truthfulness of the assertion then I do not see how I can be guilty of manipulating the statistic - which was irrelevant and misleading in the first place - or of making one up.
I mostly point this out so that any future potential voters might allow this defense of my argument. You are entitled to your opinion on your judgment and I actually appreciate you taking the time to vote, even if it is not in my favor.
Looks like this might end up as a tie 0-0....
Not sure if this is what you are going for, but it seems the topic of this debate is about the frequency of spanking and not the effectiveness of it. If you are saying it should be done less, you are still saying it should be done. This would be conceding that it is an effective parenting tool. I think it would be hard to measure how effective the overall amount of spanking in general is since each child is different. Some children need more discipline while some need more compassion.
Defining your terms is a very smart move in any debate...wait a minute...
I'll refrain from arguing from a religious perspective for the purpose of this debate, as I think there is compelling evidence from other sources as well.
Re: Bible
Could you provide one saying or teaching of the disciples that was in disagreement with Jesus’ teachings and that was also not rebuked by Jesus? You seem to think that the followers of Jesus in the Bible somehow had completely different teaching than Him but I haven’t found any that exist. Even if John 3:16 was a commentary by John and not a direct quote of Jesus, Jesus taught about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Again, I will admit that horrible acts have been committed by people throughout history in the name of Christianity. I will also outrightly condemn them because I think it can be clearly and plainly shown why they were not in line with Scripture. However, Jesus did demand people to turn from their evil ways and believe in Him alone or be condemned to hell for those evil deeds.
Question 1: That’s not a completely inaccurate statement by any means, but I would not personally use that generalization to describe the Reformation since it had more to do with the authority of Scripture and the nature of salvation. There is an aspect of a personal connection with God, but it is a connection with the God revealed in the Bible, not a god of your own personal creation. He has given the tools of reason and understanding so people could understand Scripture, which is the most trustworthy testimony we have. He has also set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) as a “tool” of understanding. Don’t you ever have thoughts about what will happen when you did, or if there is an afterlife?
Question 2: I appreciate you sharing that. I definitely wasn’t just asking as a way to debunk it and somehow prove Christianity to be true, I was actually interested to hear your thoughts on it, so thanks.
Re: Morality
When I talk about objective morality being the result of theism, I just mean that each particular theistic system would have its own objective standard for humanity to follow. In my case, I am arguing for Christian theism as revealed by the Bible as the objective standard. I also haven’t seen any moral philosophies independent of a god that don’t end up being subjective in nature, but I haven’t done an exhaustive study so perhaps I’m mistaken.
The problem I see in your posts is that you seem to be appealing to objective morality in your defense of subjective morality. Let me point out why I think this. First, you are trying to point out why the Bible doesn’t fit with a “good God” but that presupposes that there is a concept of good to be appealed to.
The same could be said when you stated, “a few hiccups aside, we have been slowing marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy.” Why is more equality and empathy desirable, and how can our subjective morality improve? That would imply that there is a standard which we should be working toward, which would have to be an objective standard that contains equality and empathy. To say that any one moral system is better than another necessarily implies that it is closer to the ideal objective moral system.
Now, I have pointed out what I believe to be an inconsistency with the position that morality is subjective. Let me put it in a practical form: I am personally not satisfied with saying the only reason to condemn the Holocaust was because essentially, America came to a different result than Germany in their vote on whether it was acceptable to exterminate Jews. This doesn’t automatically make me right and I have actually been hoping to hear arguments that speak to this point in my time on this site.
Re: Intelligent Design
You seem to be saying that chance has nothing to do with it because there is only one possible outcome, a 1:1 ratio. The problem is you are not statistically guaranteed one particular outcome when multiple outcomes are possible such as in a lottery, and you are certainly not guaranteed the most unlikely outcome. If you flip a coin, you could get 100 tails in a row. It’s highly unlikely but statistically possible. And with time and chance, it keeps becoming more likely that you will actually get an even mix of heads and tails rather than a continual result of all tails.
This is a simplistic analogy compared to the events in the universe leading to life. But in the same way that it is highly unlikely to get 100 tails in a row, it is even more unlikely that a tiny ball of matter with no known origin underwent a big bang, formed galaxies stars and planets, and one planet in particular that formed with the conditions for human life. The problem is that life coming about isn’t a probable mix of heads and tails. It requires getting tails every single time for every condition necessary for life (orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth). If you get even one heads in the process of our galaxy and earth being formed, then no life. Or, what if a giant meteorite blasted the earth apart? That’s a different outcome that does not produce life and follows the laws of nature. Also, were the laws of nature a result of the big bang? Are they an eternal constant or could they have been different? Now I’m not forcing you to answer each question, I’m just trying to show that I don’t think we can say that there is only one possible outcome from a naturalist perspective.
I will admit that it would also be fair to say a designer could fit any situation, but so could natural formation. The question then comes down to evidence and probability.
I am also curious, do you consider all mathematical evidence empirical or philosophical?
Re: Bible
Don’t worry, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief. In fact, I would say that is both constitutional and biblical!
You stated that one reason Christianity is illogical and depressing is because of human susceptibility to sin. But whether you believe in God or not, the same amount of evil is happening in the world. Do you find it less depressing knowing that violence, murder, rape, torture, death, and all the other terrible things are just meaningless events in an uncaring universe?
I will just mention that Jesus is the founder of Christianity so it would be ironic for Him to be appalled by His own teachings. Admittedly, many people have used the incorrectly used the Bible to justify evil things throughout history. However, Jesus was not simply concerned with embracing people and seeking their improvement with support and love. He taught about hell more than anyone else in the entire Bible (Matthew 13:40-43), and He was concerned about people repenting of their sin and believing in Him alone for forgiveness (Mark 1:15; John 3:16-18).
I do have two questions for you if you don’t mind me asking. You said you have an idea of a god that is unique since it does not fit any of the “varied works of men,” and you live by the “good values” of this god. Obviously I don’t have a full view of your beliefs and don’t want to presume so I’m genuinely curious: would you say that you are creating your own personal god based on your beliefs, or even holding up your personal thoughts and values as “god”?
Second, you obviously don’t believe in the Christian God and you have brought up a few disputes or disagreements with the claims of the Bible. I would be interested to know then, what you would say that your biggest problem or disagreement with Christianity is? Perhaps a different way to ask would be what is the biggest reason you don’t believe in the God of the Bible?
Re: Morality
I don’t think anyone lacks a worldview because worldviews don’t require a god, it’s simply how you view the world. Now I don’t think the distinction between “belief in no god” or “lack of belief in a god” is really all that important unless we get on to a topic such as how to determine morality. The reason is that subjective morality is consistent with atheism/naturalism (standard set by humans), and objective morality is consistent with theism (standard set by God). It seems you would agree with this at least to some degree? Either way, I think that subjective morality is a scary way to live because that means that right and wrong is ultimately determined by who has the bigger stick. A dilemma seems to rise if I were to ask you if the Nazi extermination of Jews was wrong. To say yes would be objectively imposing your morals on another society, but to say no carries serious implications for your moral standard.
Even the fundamentals that you listed such as stealing and murder cannot be assumed in subjective morality because there is no universal agreement on what stealing and murder are, or if they are actually wrong. Don’t you think it’s at least a little unsettling to think that something as important as personhood is a moveable standard that can include an individual in one society, and exclude them in another?
I’m not sure exactly what you meant by the “dominance of atheism” being established by our forefathers so this may not exactly answer that premise, but the founding fathers established our government with the principle that humans have inalienable rights given to them by God. The government does not grant rights or take them away, it only recognizes and protects them. At least that was the original intent. The basis of our constitutional rights actually presuppose God, while also not allowing the government to legislate personal belief.
Re: Intelligent Design
The problem with fitting the design story into all scenarios is that you are creating hypothetical realities to argue against actual reality. We don’t live in a universe where life and existence are near certainty and there is no reason to think that a universe such as that exists. The fact is that the fine tuning of our universe (whether by chance or design) is our reality. The intelligent design argument says that the universe is too precise to allow for random structuring to be a reasonable explanation. So really, the only scenario that the designer story fits is one where life exists because of the improbability of it. As for your biology example, I would say that many different systems or animal forms, rather than uniformity, would be a stronger evidence for randomness than design. Why would uniformity and consistency be used to describe anything structured at random, especially something as complex as the universe?
Now I’m specifically curious as to whether you think that intelligent design is scientific. You disagreed, but the arguments you applied to this theory are not the ones I had in mind so let me elaborate. The fact is that people have looked at the universe and made empirical observations about the requirements and improbability of life on earth. Even the slightest differences in the orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth would make the existence of life impossible. These are scientific, empirical observations. People have derived mathematical probabilities of the existence of life from these observations. Whether they are right or wrong, I am wondering how arriving at a conclusion based on empirical observations and mathematical probabilities is not scientific.
If you still don’t agree that it is scientific, then what “positive evidence” would be required for it to be considered scientific?
Re: The Bible
I specifically said that archaeology has only confirmed and not controverted biblical events, locations, and people. This does not mean that archaeological evidence has been found for every detail of the Bible. But there have been over 25,000 archaeological finds which confirm the narrative of the Bible, and no archaeological finds that contradict it. I should also mention that a lack of evidence does not disprove something, it only proves that we don’t have evidence.
A single eyewitness testimony may be weak courtroom evidence, but we have four different records of eyewitness testimonies in the four gospels. They also claim that there were at least 500 other eyewitnesses, and none of them seemed to have contradicted the appearance of Jesus after His death given the massive growth of Christianity after this event. Corroborated eyewitness testimony is actually a very strong source of evidence. In “Cold-Case Christianity” J. Warner Wallace examines the gospel accounts using the same investigative techniques he uses as a cold case detective to show why the accounts are reliable.
While holy books would seek preservation, none compare to the Bible. I would agree that mass appeal does not signify truth. However, it does give a truth claim reason to be honestly examined. That is why I have read the Quran and studied the claims of Islam since that is major monotheistic religion. I think the claims are false, but I also don’t want to misrepresent what their book actually teaches. I would ask critics of the Bible to show the same intellectual diligence in actually reading the book they are critiquing so as not to misrepresent it. This is just a general statement and not an accusation by any means towards you.
The manuscript evidence is also not a direct validation of the truth of the Bible. Rather, it shows the authenticity of the Bible as an ancient document and the accuracy with which it has been preserved.
Re: Life
Let me address a specific point here. I would agree that science alone cannot give us a definition of personhood. However, you have said that the attribution of personhood should be the subjective decision of a society. So what if Society A attributes personhood at conception, and Society B attributes personhood at birth. Would you say then that it is wrong for someone in Society A to perform an abortion, but it is not wrong for someone in Society B to do so?
If that is the case, what if Society C attributes personhood at 2 years of age? Is it then alright for them to dispose of non-persons that are less than 2 years old? You can probably see where I’m going with this, but I would like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any grounds to condemn the subjective decision of a society not to attribute personhood to certain ages such as those under 2 years old.
And yes, my worldview is a personal thing. But isn’t yours as well? Also, atheism is actually a minority view both in America and the world compared to theism. So how do we decide whose worldview is correct, and why should a minority atheistic worldview take precedence over a theistic one?
Re: Scientific Method
I may need you to clarify exactly what you mean between natural design vs intelligent design as fitting certain situations. The whole point of intelligent design is that there seems to be a fine tuning in the universe so precise that it seems virtually impossible for the conditions necessary for human life to exist to come about by natural processes. To state it closer to your terms, the odds that natural design brought about our specific circumstances are so astronomically low that the only plausible explanation seems to be that there must have been an external source or mind orchestrating it all.
But I guess my main point was not to prove the theory of intelligent design or even say you have to agree with it, but rather to see if you believed it was scientific since it uses empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe, even though we can’t physically observe the designer.
To verify the authenticity of the claims of Scripture, we would use a method similar to that of a courtroom (examine evidence to reach a conclusion). So no, I would not consider it a scientific method of verification. But I also don’t hold science as the supreme source of objective knowledge. The gospel accounts in the Bible can be verified by corroborated eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events (mainly, the resurrection) that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies surrounding the person of Jesus. The authenticity of the historical documents can be shown by an overwhelming amount of manuscript evidence compared to any other ancient writing. Archaeology has provided precise evidence of biblical accounts, while also not controverting anything in the Bible.
Body+Soul
There is a distinction between human souls and animal “souls” but it is drawn completely from Scripture. The simplest way to understand it would be that humans are made in the image of God and have an eternal soul. Animals simply have life (the word literally means “wind, breath, or life”) and that individual animal life is also translated into English from Hebrew as “soul.”
Re: Life
You said previously that science is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. You have also said (and I would agree) that there is no real consensus on a definition of life or death. There also seems to be no real definition for identifying autonomous organisms in a meaningful way that would inform an issue like abortion. It seems to me that the supreme source of objective knowledge (in this case science) should be able to give us more clarity on these issues than it does. What source should we then go to in solving issues like abortion if science cannot give us this objective knowledge?
I never created a universal need for technical definitions, nor does my worldview require them. The keywords I would use are “definition” and “understanding.” God has already defined what life is, and our categorizations are either right or wrong compared to that. The problem we have is that He doesn’t necessarily give a technical definition, but He does give us enough knowledge for understanding what life is. That is why I can say a human is life even if I can’t be certain about a virus. Personally, I would say viruses are not life, but I might be biased since I’m still recovering from a mass extermination of cold viruses.
A naturalistic worldview does not have the luxury of an external source of objective knowledge, so it is up to people to ultimately determine how they want to categorize life and death. Science is only able to identify what falls within its definition and nothing more. If the definition of life doesn’t include viruses, then viruses are either not life or the definition must be changed. If a definition of death somehow includes a patient in a coma, that organism is now dead or the definition must be changed. If science cannot precisely determine what is or isn’t life based on its definition, then it is not the supreme source of objective truth and we must appeal to some other authority.
Re: Dalton and scientific theories
Let me see if I can point out where I think we may have reached some common ground on this. I agree with you that it is very difficult to find a theory established by the peer-reviewed scientific method that has been proven wrong in its fundamental principles. It seems you would agree that the original claim needs to be adjusted or given a bit more clarification to account for modifications to theories, especially as technological advancement provides further insight to them.
Does that seem like a fair assessment?
Re: Scientific Method
I don’t think we need to claim ignorance, I just think we need to recognize that there are conclusions based on observation (acid-base reactions) and conclusions based on assumption (big bang) because the event itself cannot be observed. But since you seem to not place any distinction between these two types of conclusions, would you also say that intelligent design is a perfectly rational and scientific theory, even if we can’t observe the designer?
Re: Life
1. That is a good observation to distinguish between a person and the parts of a person. That was probably carelessness on my part not to do so. We would likely differ somewhat on how to distinguish these though. I believe there is a material and immaterial part to humans. The combination of a body and soul I would refer to as “life.” The individual components would consist of living cells. I make this distinction because I would consider a body without a soul dead, even if some part of it were still functioning. A heart transplant would be a good example. The donor is no longer considered a “life” even though the living cells in his heart continue to function in the recipient. But as far as your claims that any living cell is life, you still haven’t clarified your standard for determining what is “life.” For instance, do you make any distinction between an organism and an individual organ?
2. You're right that science itself doesn't make moral judgments. However, some of our scientific conclusions inevitably affect morality. If all the things you mentioned in point #1 are considered life, then how do we distinguish what it means to end a life? How you answer that scientifically will affect your moral beliefs.
3. Please explain.
4. I would argue that the Christian God as revealed in the Bible is the standard of all morality and the source for our understanding of life, and there is very good reason to hold this position. But that will get us back into religion. I’m happy to go there if you’d like though.
Re: Scientific Method
I may have been careless in my explanation. I agree that air bubbles and tree rings are a part of empirical science because we can observe them. Ancient atmospheres would be part of theoretical science since we cannot observe them, even if the evidence we use is empirical. Theoretical science is an assumption that requires empirical science. Empirical science is an observation that does not require theoretical science.
I posed the analogy for the hopes of clarifying my point. Obviously I didn’t achieve that so let’s just forget the analogy and just look at a chemical formula. If you wanted to test an acid base reaction, how would you do it? Well, you would probably start by writing out the reaction on paper and making sure that your reactants and products balance. But you probably wouldn’t stop there because you want to verify that the reactants actually do what you think they are going to do. So you go to the lab, observe the reaction, measure the results, etc. The acid base reaction itself is the “event” that you can observe, measure, and repeat.
So my distinction could be viewed in this way then. Writing out the acid base reaction on paper is theoretical science. Once you actually carry out the experiment, it becomes empirical science. If you never actually carry out the experiment, or you are unable to do so, it remains theoretical science (only done “on paper”).
Does that make more sense?
I read too fast and misunderstood your statement about changing your intro regarding limitation statements, thank you for clarifying.
Here is a source for isobars (https://www.periodic-table.org/what-is-isobar-nuclide-definition/). They are just isotopes of two different elements that have the same atomic mass.
Dalton’s original theory said that the ratios of the elements were whole numbers (1:1, 1:2, 2:3, etc.) so it’s not that each element has a whole number, but the ratios do. 12:22:11 consists of whole numbers, but does not consist of whole number ratios (no even ration between 12 and 22 for instance). Here is one of the sites I looked at for this (https://www.chemteam.info/AtomicStructure/Dalton.html). And yes, I googled all this. I haven’t exactly kept up on my chemistry principles since college!
Also, Dalton’s original theory did not say “atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other propertied.” He said they “are identical” in those ways. That's a very important distinction. The discovery of isotopes of the same element with different atomic masses disproved that statement. Adding the word “nearly” is a later correction to the error Dalton made.
You have still left me in a bit of a conundrum as far as showing a scientific theory that has been disproved or debunked. Are you saying then that as long as any concept in that theory remains accurate, the theory is not considered disproved?
Life:
This might perhaps bring us back to the religion vs. science discussion that we started on. I think that we do need to have a clear understanding about what life is and I don’t believe that science alone can give us one, or at least an adequate one. The reason that clear borders are needed is because a simple definition of life is the difference between 500,000 clumps of cells being removed from women each year, or 500,000 brutal murders of children each year.
Now science is not my authority or my supreme source of all knowledge, so my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential. I know that humans are alive and have inherent value over plants and animals because God has revealed that in the Bible. I know that life begins in the womb because the Bible teaches that. I know that plants and animals are alive, but they can also be killed to aid in our survival because of our value over them. So whatever definition I come up with MUST encompass those truths.
From an atheistic perspective, how we categorize life is completely up to us. Science actually has nothing to do with it. We just have to set the goal post and science will then tell us what falls within our categorization of life. The problem is that even subtle changes to a definition of life could then exclude certain humans from that definition. If we decide that life is determined by consciousness or responsiveness, then we could destroy babies, people in comas, etc., because they are not “alive” and science has no bearing on telling us the correctness of this definition of life. If we decide that life begins outside the womb for mammals, that has serious implications. For humans in particular, if we decide that life begins with a heartbeat, we just have to empirically observe when the heartbeat begins. That's why I think a clear understanding of life is important.
Scientific Method:
You can pick apart any analogy with technical details. I gave it to help illustrate and clarify my point, not prove it. Let’s maybe distinguish then between empirical science and theoretical science (I am not putting too much weight on these adjectives, just making a distinction). Empirical science would be the observation of events (let’s say combustion) where we can see it and measure it. There’s really no need for assumption because we can continually burn things to observe that event.
On the other hand, theoretical science involves proposing an assumption that requires observations from empirical science. To use your example, we would not have a clue what ancient atmospheres look like without information from empirical science. We can observe trees growing and measure current CO2 levels. If there is ever any doubt, we can just grow a tree and watch how CO2 affects it. All of the empirical evidence obtained in this way is falsifiable by observable, measurable, repeatable methods. Now if we take our mountain of evidence that is all falsifiable by observable methods, and we make a conclusion that is not observable (the condition of ancient atmospheres), we have just made an assumption based on our empirical evidence. So the assumption (ancient atmospheres) could be categorized as theoretical, while the evidence (tree rings/CO2, ice core samples) is empirical.
I am trying to be as broad as possible to at least see if we can agree that there is a distinction in methodology between empirical and theoretical science. Again, those are somewhat arbitrary terms that I’m just using to describe the distinction.
Dalton’s Theory:
Points that have been disproven:
Atoms are indivisible-Disproven
All atoms of a given element are identical in mass and properties-Disproven by isotopes
Atoms of different elements are different in all respects-Disproved by isobars
Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios-Disproven by complex organic compounds (C12-H22-O11)
This is not to discredit Dalton’s incredible contribution to atomic theory. However, your statement was that expansion on a theory means that nothing is disproven, corrected, or changed, and the discoveries “are as accurate today as ever.” I have just shown you major parts of Dalton’s theory were disproven, corrected, and changed.
Re: life
I am not backing away at all because I am not the one defending science, you are. The point I was trying to get at was that at if there was a time where there was nothing but non-living material in the universe, then at some point life had to come from non-life. Something is either alive or its not. If we take cell theory, it states that all living cells come from pre-existing living cells. By your own admission, a key element of a scientific theory is that it “explains all past events, and predicts future events.” At some point, a living cell did not come from a pre-existing living cell, so the theory does not explain the rise of life from non-life (a past event). Plus, if we can’t define life, then we can’t define what a living cell is which would also render the theory useless.
Re: scientific theories debunked
Dalton's atomic theory is an example of an expanded or modified theory that disproved certain points. That doesn't negate the great insight and correct concepts he provided, but it was a scientifically established theory that was proven wrong in some aspects. Your definition of expansion does not involve any disproving, correcting, or changing, which is what happened with this theory.
Re: scientific method
Let’s take a simpler example of the scientific method. If we use a plain old combustion formula, we can observe how the combination of a hydrocarbon and oxygen react to form CO2 and water. We can’t just assume that anytime we see CO2 and water that combustion must have occurred. So combustion is the event, CO2 and water are the result. We can repeat the event of combustion, observe it, and measure the quantities involved.
Now imagine if I was the first one to make a hypothesis that included the combustion chemical equation. Then, I asked you to verify it and see if you could disprove it, but to do so you could not actually test out the combustion process to see if it worked. You could only test the theory on paper, or you could observe a sample of carbon dioxide and water that may or may not have resulted from a combustion reaction. This is a generalized example but I hope it helps to illustrate my point. To carry out the scientific method, you would have to test the event (combustion) and observe the results (CO2 and water). If you simply observe the results without ever observing the event, you are forced to make assumptions about the event and assumptions are not empirical evidence.
So perhaps it would be better if you explained to me how you could carry out the scientific method on a combustion reaction without ever performing an experiment on or observing, measuring, and repeating the actual combustion process.
You made a statement about ALL scientifically established theories that included expansion. Are you saying there hasn't been a single expansion on a scientific theory that proved some part of the original theory wrong? If that's not what you meant, then I'm not really sure what your standard is for "debunking" a scientifically established theory, or even what you consider a "scientifically established theory" for that matter.
Again, I am not stating there is not evidence that supports the big bang theory. What I am saying is that the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable, please explain to me how it can be established USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
As far as defining life, you're the one who said we can't say for sure what life is, not me. If you're main concern is a scientific systematic categorization of things, and you can't give an accurate categorization for something as important as life, then I'm not sure that science is the "most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively." But let's maybe move back to the original point for a moment. If everything started as non-living material and there is now life, that means at some point non-life became life. It really doesn't matter what you call intermediary stages or how much time you add to the scenario. If you believe that at some point, there was no living material in the universe, then the fact remains that living cells must have come from non-living material, right?
Well "expanded" is just another way to say "it was wrong and had to be changed." But regarding the big bang, it is a hypothetical scenario that cannot be repeated and was not observed. Again, you still have not told me how you can scientifically prove an event that is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. Sure we can observe the uniform expansion of the universe. How do you then prove, using the scientific method, that uniform expansion was caused by the big bang?
Well if we can't even define what life is, we have a whole lot more of a problem than debunking scientific theories. Are you alive? If so, by what standard? If you can't provide a scientific definition of life to scientifically prove humans are alive, should murder no longer be a crime?
Re: big bang
Again, I am not disputing that there is supporting evidence for the big bang. We can make scientific observations about current conditions that support the hypothesis, but the event of the big bang itself is purely theoretical and cannot be observed, measured, or repeated. Do you have a different scientific method that does not require something to be observable, measurable, or repeatable? And you did not answer my question about how to disprove something of this nature.
Re: biogenesis
Perhaps we should take a step back from categorizations and deal with general principles first. Do you believe that life can be derived from non-life or non-living material?
As for your statements about the Big Bang being scientific, you said that we can logically assume that it happened a certain way. Logical assumptions like this are not observable, measurable, repeatable science. You have just stepped into the realm of philosophy. I am not disagreeing that the assumption makes sense or that support can be drawn from scientific observation of current conditions in the universe (the light of the star can be observed because it exists in the present). But you cannot observe the Big Bang event, nor can it be repeated. So perhaps a good question would be, if a hypothesis (in this case, the Big Bang) cannot be directly observed, measured, or repeated, how can you disprove it scientifically?
As far as failed scientific assertions, it’s interesting that you mentioned abiogenesis as discarded. I can disprove one of two theories quite easily. You cannot hold to both the theory of evolution and the theory of biogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis). Evolution requires abiogenesis. Unless space dust is somehow alive.
My statement that science is about “a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven” and your statement that it is an “undisproven hypothesis” seem to be the same thing to me. My point is that even if the hypothesis has been subjected to an international peer review community, the ability to test it is only as good as the tools we have to do so. Think about astronomy. Peoples’ understanding changed dramatically after Galileo came onto the scene with his telescope. Then the Hubble telescope shattered even more limitations on our power of observation, allowing us to become more accurate in our understanding of the physical universe. However, we still have limitations on what we can be confident about, and we cannot say for sure what future technology and events will reveal to us. When it comes to maintaining an “undisproven hypothesis,” unless you can say with 100% certainty that no amount of observation and no future technology will disprove it, then it is not proven. We just have a varying degrees of certainty that it is true.
Re: God
You have gone straight to the conclusion that the biblical account is just a “simplified narrative…dumbing things down for immature children.”
Have you actually taken the time to look into the arguments of scholarly creationists? Can you name any scholarly literature you have read arguing from the creationist perspective that you haven’t immediately dismissed as childish? If you think that the arguments from this perspective are simply, “Well, we can’t explain that so it must have been God via magic,” that shows a serious misrepresentation of people with different views than you.
Your explanation for the beginning of the universe in comment #24 was this:
“The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitimate source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang…Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer…”
To summarize your explanation: the best guess right now is the Big Bang theory, which is the current contender in a long line of failed theories that science has given us. “We have zero clue what was before, during and for a few fractions of a second just after,” with your best guess being the unsatisfactory answer of infinite regression. But, you know for sure that it isn’t my thing because I’m just an immature child who has to resort to saying God did it via magic.
The problem with this argument is that it isn’t actually scientific. It is a philosophical argument based on mathematics and reason. The scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Observable: Can we observe the events of the Big Bang Theory happening? Nope
Measurable: Can we quantify anything about the Big Bang Theory through experimentation? Nope
Repeatable: Can we repeat the Big Bang Theory? Only if you buy all the seasons on DVD, otherwise nope
Re: Science
It seems as though you believe that science is the end of all knowledge, and that it is superior to all other forms of knowledge/logic/etc. Would you say that is an accurate description of your belief? Or perhaps you could clarify what preeminence you give to science.
Also, the fact still remains that science is about a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven, just as you stated. This is different than it being proven. You seem to downplay the fallibility of human knowledge. A survey of failed “scientific” assertions throughout history should give us a very humbling view about what we can be certain about.
As far as a literal creation account, it would be hard to argue it from a purely scientific standpoint. If God was involved by working supernaturally to bring about the world and everything in it, He would be working outside the realm of natural laws as we understand them. That doesn't mean creationists just get a free pass at having to deal with any issues, but it means that if God could do the impossible by creating something out of nothing, He would also be capable of keeping plants alive for a day before He created the sun if He so chose. So He did leave a lot of details out, He didn't include a peer-reviewed article on classifications of species, but I do not believe that He misled us or gave us false information just to keep us happy.
Now I would say that if the Bible is true, it is actually a huge contribution to various fields of science. We would understand such things as these:
The origin of the universe
That all humans had a single common ancestor, Adam
Geological impacts of a global flood
Impact of sin on psychology
Distinction between material and immaterial side of humans
Unnatural phenomenon of disease and death (effects of the fall)
Admittedly, some of these would be difficult to test using the scientific method, but they could still be viewed as empirical data involving observations about the natural world. I'm not asking you to concede the validity of the Bible but I would like to ask a hypothetical question: IF we somehow found out that the Bible was true in its claims that I listed above, wouldn't that revolutionize our understanding of science?
Sorry for the delayed response. I had a particularly extensive argument due in a debate and I was busy with other stuff. I actually don't have a problem with bias in experiments, as long as you try to not let it affect your results. As far as science proving anything, I think it would be better to say that science helps us more accurately observe and explain the world around us. We have varying degrees of certainty about what we know from a scientific standpoint. However, that knowledge is always subject to change based on new evidence. If something is subject to change, it is not really proven. We just have a greater degree of certainty for that which we accept or reject based on our findings.
You're right, the creation account is written with the assumption of "this is how it happened." Genesis 1:1 is a simple statement and then chapters 1-2 provide more details on that. You're also right that the creation account doesn't come with a full analysis of chemical processes or mathematical equations to make it technical or "scientific" as we would use the word today. However, we should be careful not to force our contemporary ideas of science to say that ancient observations and explanations do not even count as science.
I realized I made a mistake on one of my links for sources in Section B of my response:
"The best guess we have on when the prophecy was fulfilled is King Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt in 568 BC (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27927044?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, see page 187-188, view with free account)"
This is the correct link to the article I meant to cite. My apologies.
I will just mention that the Old Testament contains an extensive history of the nation of Israel, including ancestral records. Those portions do actually claim to be historical records and can be cross-referenced with extra-biblical sources. But since the historical aspect doesn't interest you, let's move on.
I think we at least have some common ground on the point of the Bible being primarily, in a general sense, a moral guide or a book on how to live. *digital high-five* let's move on.
Since science is where your interest is, let me make two comments that you may be more inclined to interact with. First, science cannot "prove" anything. The mere notion is an impossibility. So if your primary source of belief and truth is from science, then you are basing your belief and truth on a system that has no way of definitively proving anything, no absolutes, and is in a constant state of change. I would genuinely like to hear any thoughts that you have on this idea, or clarification on what informs your beliefs in addition to science.
Here is a point that may pique your interest and show a biblical contribution to science. Many people believed that the universe had no beginning until the early 1900's. However, the discovery that the universe was expanding was evidence that the universe did have a beginning. Was there anyone who hypothesized this theory? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." While you may not find the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 very convincing, it is at least interesting that the Bible has made the bold claim that the universe has a beginning, even when "science" disagreed.
No worries. I know there are far more important things in life than posting debate arguments online so sorry if I seemed like I was getting on your case! You definitely made me have to think through my position and I hope you consider looking at any of those resources I recommended. Thanks for the debate!
I can also address the science and history issue, but I just need some clarification. You seem to be implying that the Bible should not be viewed as historical if it does not contain a comprehensive record of the history of ancient Rome for instance. If so, I think that is an unfair standard that would not be placed on any other book. For example, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg would not have to have a comprehensive history of American politics, slavery, and a list of all Civil War battles. You would only expect it to list pertinent people and events, and that those events accurately correspond with that time period.
In the same way, the Bible is in agreement with historical records. Many people, places, and events accurately correspond with the historical record of those time periods. I can definitely make a case for its agreement with history and science, but you would be correct if you said that the Bible is not intended to deal with those topics comprehensively. So, before I address the issue of history and science, let me ask this. Does the Bible have to give a comprehensive detailing of science and history to be taken seriously? If so, how much science and history must be explained before it can be taken seriously?
If you are saying that you don't think the Bible is God giving complete knowledge to the world, I would agree with you. Only God has complete knowledge. If we could obtain complete knowledge, then we would also be omniscient as God is. However, just because we do not have complete knowledge of something does not mean we cannot understand it. I don't have a complete knowledge of an internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean I can't have any understanding of what a car is or how it works.
I would also agree that the Bible was not intended to reveal the secrets of creation. We can see this in Job 38-41 where God gives a scathing rebuke to Job to show that God has an infinite knowledge of the world He created, and Job knows next to nothing compared to Him. Again, God knows all, we know some.
I think I could also agree with you in a general sense that the Bible could be summed up as a book about how to live properly and why, but I think we would mean two different things. The way you describe it would actually be a better fit for the Mosaic Law than the entire Bible. God gave Israel the law to show them how to live. Much of it was a form of "do this" or "don't do that." But giving us a perfect moral standard doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that every one of us has broken the Law and will be punished on Judgment Day. So if you stop at just being a list of "do this" and "don't do that," then we'd all be justly condemned to hell. It has to go one step further.
So to sum up, I would agree that it is a moral guide that actually shows us our absolute inability to live up to God's standard, and points us to our utter need to trust in Jesus to pay our fine so that we can escape hell.
-They all provide a firsthand account of His life, death, and resurrection. Why? For the specific purpose of conveying the message of “the gospel” to mankind:
“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)
-The Bible is intended to draw a response from the hearer:
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)
First and foremost, the Bible is God revealing to us our problem (“sin”), and pointing us to our solution (repent and believe in Jesus, or “faith”). After a person does that, it does serve as a sort of moral guide, but more so than just a book of rules. It has little value as a moral guide to those who are “unsaved” because our natural tendency as humans is toward evil (lying, cheating, stealing, envy, etc.), so we wouldn’t want to follow it anyway. Therefore, I don’t think we can simply classify it as a moral guide, at least according to its own claims. Therefore, I don’t think it fits into an either/or categorization like that.
You’re right. I see in trying to be somewhat brief, I did not clearly answer the question. It is also hard to summarize the purpose of the Bible in a short time because it actually has many, even strictly according to its own claims. I think we need to start by making a distinction between “the Bible” and the “books” in the Bible. The Bible as a whole is simply a collection of ancient documents. Some even refer to it as a library rather than a book. The “books” of the Bible are the individual documents written over the course of about 1,500 years by about 40 different authors. Each book has an individual purpose for being written. For example, Psalms was the written record of the songs of Israel. However, each book and its individual purpose also points to the main purpose of the Bible as a whole. In a general sense, it is God’s revelation to humans about who He is and who we are. It reveals a personal God who can be known because He chooses to reveal Himself to us.
With that distinction, let’s just focus on the Jesus narrative to define a specific purpose. This narrative is most clearly found in the four gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They each give a unique perspective on the life of Christ. In Luke 1:1-4, Luke clearly states he is carefully recording eyewitness accounts. A later letter by John also states he proclaims an eyewitness testimony about Jesus (1 John 1:1-2).
It certainly won't shut off debate. I enjoy a good logical discussion. I just find it helpful to have a general idea of the viewpoint people are arguing from to give a more meaningful answer.
The Bible was not intended to be either of those. I would argue that the Bible is in agreement with history, archaeology, and even science (outside of the recorded supernatural events, which by definition defy natural laws as we understand them). I would also argue that it contains a better standard for interpersonal relationships than any other religion/worldview/etc.
However, the Bible has one central message. It all points to the person, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Now don't lose me here because this is usually where people tune out, but I'll try to briefly sum up the main purpose that the entire Bible points to:
Jesus, the Son of God, became a man and died on a cross to pay the penalty we deserve for all the evil things that we do. He was resurrected from the dead and will judge all mankind. Those who recognize they have committed evil acts against God, ask for forgiveness and mercy, and trust that it is only Jesus of the Bible who can save them will spend eternity in heaven. All others will spend eternity in hell. At least, that's what it says.
To put it another way, it gives answers to those four nagging questions:
Where did we come from? --> We were created by God somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years ago, depending on who you ask
Why are we here? --> We were created to worship and glorify God
What is wrong with the world? --> Through Adam's evil committed against God, humanity "fell" and everyone became inclined toward evil and is under the wrath of God
Where are we going? --> Heaven or hell on judgment day
Let me know if you were trying to go in a different direction with that question, but I think that is the best answer for the purpose of the Bible.
Thank you for commenting. I would be interested to know if you have a religious background that informs your explanation to maybe get a better idea of your thought.
If that is the case, what defines a human? At what point between apes and modern man did Adam receive a soul? This is of vital importance because humans have a higher intrinsic value than animals. If we cannot see someone's soul, we have to be able to distinguish between them. This is easy to do now, but what happens when humans evolve into something else? At what point will they no longer be considered human and stop receiving souls?
You might as well since Dynasty seems to be afk