How to perform science without using "methodological naturalism."

You are taking offense to an imagined offense. I do not believe God lied in Genesis. Though @nlents is not a Christian, he doesn’t do science to disprove your reading scripture.


If he did then that atheist website is completely correct.

1 Like

You have heard the phrase, “where the rubber meets the road.” Anyone can say that God of Scripture is not a liar. But what does that person say and do to prove that God is not lying as He states plainly in His word?

But when i read not just Genesis but the entirty of Scripture about the nature of God being hands on in His creation purposes which i think ID makes a very convincing case for in science and statistical analysis, i am surprized by your barrage of negating them at all cost for a model that also completely negates the sense one gets from Scripture.

So we all have our biases…a bias could be otherwise called faith and “without faith it is impossible to please God.”

Then scripture is obviously wrong, because I’m not aware of the existence of “the Creator”.

Therefore true science should be an analysis of the created world, and not a world marked as one existing via randomness and chance. I applaud men and women who love to analyze the created world. I am sour when historical science takes a philosophical path that interprets the existence of life and the universe itself on naturalistic cruise control.

Too bad. Grow up and accept it. Your interpretation of your religious scripture is in manifest conflict with reality. So you either have to find another interpretation, or accept that scripture is wrong. Maybe God did created the world, but men created scripture? That would explain why the two so obviously conflict, the men who wrote scripture got God’s method, timing, and plan of creation wrong.

This does not mean that science is capable of determining the nature of God.

True, it doesn’t automatically mean that. But if God’s nature is reflected in his creation, and if the world is God’s creation(big if), then science is capable of determining his nature, because science is the best tool we have for analyzing and understanding nature.

Rather, it should leave within the realm of conclusions the existence of a Cause at every turn, where the theologian can then be handed the batton. When that baton is handed to the Christian theologian, God creating plants and animals according to their kinds in short order where God concludes with calling His work “very good” trumps naturalistic common descent evolution via selection of random luck and chance over large amounts of time.

Right, cool story bro.


But you dont’ know that the Bible is actually God’s word.

1 Like

First off, you are labled “atheist” All due respect, i am a bit conflicted how i can trust you as as trusted authority on how to define the nature of God.

And think about what you are saying. In a realm where we open our minds for all possibilities, it is quite possible that there is a God and that there are dimensions about reality that mankind is not even aware of in his mind as it is trapped in his physical existence. Additionally, in a realm where we open our minds for all possibilities, the possible existence of God who transcends our physical existence may have spoken truths through men who are considered His spokespeople called prophets which is 100% accurate even as it runs contrary to the science which we tend to place our trust.

The Bible says that Eve was fashioned from the rib of Adam. I know, this may sound ridiculous to you…Bear with me… Lets say that from this sense, God in a matter of a couple of a thousand years directly miraculously took a deer and all of its components and manifested a giraffe out from the same dna components, but just altered the form. When science of man analyzes the structure of the deer and the giraffe, i think you catch my drift that it was 100% incapable of observing the nature of God in how He accomplished the creation of the giraffe. This odd example is to make the point that, no, the science of man is not the most reliable source of determining the nature of God. Science may be much more inept than any if us are able to imagine in the dimension in which we live. Where science may be inept, you would think that the most reliable would always be His personal testimony which i personally have chosen to trust in. Dont shoot me.

So these are all faith matters- in the realm of all possibilities, do i trust science to tell me about the nature of God, or revelation. I can tell you that if Jesus rose from the dead as history agrees yet science does not and He demonstrated trust in OT as the Word of God, wisdom says trust it and not the science of man.

I can answer that: No, there are not.

1 Like

25 posts were split to a new topic: Racism and Methdological Naturalism

You are arguing that because we haven’t observed the properties of sand for long enough nor observed sand everywhere that we cannot claim ‘sand doesn’t naturally and spontaneously formed human beings?’

But you are reading between the lines. You are sometimes finding entire chapters between two lines.


Not arguing anything. I asked for the scope of the observation.
There is a framework to every inference.

Scripture is also clear that he can be denied and that hearts can become calloused.

I was addressing this to a Christian, @swamidass, not to an agnostic i assume by your label is who you are. This is why these discussions are tricky- if i address one person one way, it will be wholly misunderstood by another.

Anyway, thanks for your patience of understanding these challenges of communication.

This i have found true in my own heart. At times in years past even as a Christian, the longer i believed something that really was not true and not spoken of as true in Scripture, the easier it was to incorrectly interpret through the lenses of that lie in a way that convinced me that it was true when it wasnt! Ugh…it would take a brother or a word from Scripture or a sermon in our church to snap me out of trance. Again, we are all, smart, not smart big, small, and of all the various beautiful hues of skin color just sheep in need of a Shepherd.

I wish I could convince you of the antiquity of the universe. The truth that comes from the reality of God’s creation is not contrary to the truth that comes from the reality of his word. A young earth reading diminishes the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.

“What is man, that you are mindful of him?”(!)

1 Like

Speaking of which, this is a favorite:

Let me challenge you with something based upon the verse you sent that reads, “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?”

When i, a puny, simple, finite and sometimes a rather irrational little man see the vastness of the universe and the fact that light from the most distant stars could not have made it to earth in a few thousand years, my inclination is to trust that the earth and universe is quite old. But then i read the Scriptures that essentially equate the full mass sum of all of the universe as mere dirt under the fingernails of such a Great God who transcends time and space, i am left with my jaw hitting the floor in awe of such a God who did not need billions, millions or thousands of years to build the universe. He could have done it in hours.

Abiding by the naturalistic principles espoused by mainstream science and the old earth big bang cosmology robs God of the glory due Him as One whose ways are fully beyond our rationale in His creative purposes. I have never been firmer in my position as a young earth creationist. After receiving the invitation i have recd to attend God’s banquet in heaven, i am choosing not a seat of trusting human rationale that gives me the nerve to define my deserving a seat in front at that banquet. Rather, i choose a seat in the back, humbly trusting what God seems to be clearly saying in His word. And if my King thinks im worthy of moving up closer to the front, then that’s His choice and not mine.

So thanks for the invite Dale but i will have to decline.

Blessed Weekend.

Why did he take 144 hours? He could have done it in an instant. Did it take him ‘all day’ to create light? Is God short of time that he has to do things in a hurry? God’s omnipotence is not in question for either of us, and really should not need to even be mentioned between two Christians. About mornings and evenings…

Earth’s morning has long since passed and its day nearly spent. Its evening will be over when the bright Morning Star returns.

4 posts were split to a new topic: Death before the fall


Of course it is wrong. That is equivalent to saying a proclamation that God does not exist is a statement about God.

If that were true, then there would never be a way to make a denial of God that you wouldn’t interpret as “God talk”. You have to use terminology in a natural way … or people are going to think you lack interpretive judgment.