« Fred Sanders on Pagan vs. Biblical Propitiation | Main | Kolodny: I Will Dance on Traditional Marriage's Grave »

February 24, 2014

Comments

I recently had a discussion with an agnostic who claimed he believed in supernatural intervention but said he didn't believe in any religion's god(s). He said the best evidence against the existence of god was the claim by theists that God created the universe yet no religion has knowledge that goes beyond man's that was natural. He clarified that it wasn't about which piece of knowledge that was revealed, it was the simple fact that there was zero evidence for god being capable of creating the universe based upon the fact that there was no knowledge beyond man's about the design of nature in the bible.

Science of course isn't perfect, but he seemed to have a point and I was stumped.

He doesn't believe the Bible is from God because it doesn't take time out from the story to teach science? Why would it?

The Bible does have quite a bit of knowledge beyond what is natural. That is, it reveals who God is, along with His plan to redeem us through Christ's sacrifice. We could not have known this on our own. That's the purpose of the Bible. Everything is focused on that. To waste time talking about the workings of a cell would have just been bizarre and irrelevant.

Yeah, science is interesting, and helpful, and even exciting. But when compared to the great moral questions, timeless wisdom, truths about what it means to be human, the story of the God of the universe's interactions with humanity, the cross, and the glory of God, it doesn't even come close.

Hi. This is john's younger brother. Sorry for the rather rude message that he posted. John is in fact an atheist.

He and I used to argue a lot but not anymore. Also, sorry for hijacking the post.

I just want to point out that the fatal flaw in Johns argument is pretty obvious. If one did believe (but I do not) that the bible doesn't reveal natural knowledge beyond human limits this wouldn't indicate that the Christian God doesn't exist. Talking about how the bible isn't a science book misses the point. I know, he and I used to talk endlessly all the time.

It simply doesn't follow logically from the premise. One needn't engage with it.

Luke, I suspected that because of the lowercase "god" and because it didn't seem like the kind of thing a Christian would be stumped by...and because I didn't want to think it was the case that a Christian couldn't think through this. But I didn't want to assume. :-)

Since this isn't a post about the age of the earth, but rather a post about discussing the age of the earth with other Christians, I would like to request a future discussion on STR about the Holographic Universe theory that is becoming popular in so called "scientific circles". If true, it seems it could clear up a lot of the present inharmonicity between Scripture and science.

The comments to this entry are closed.