Does God Exist? - John Clayton

[thebutcher]

Science is primarily a methodology. Religions have their own methodology. The two are not compatible...

I agree. Science and religion do not mix. You cannot prove the bible through science, and the biblical quotes that Mr. Clayton uses out of context do not show that the bible is scientific.

He compares Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence to 2 Peter 3:8. He says, "It's hard to believe that they gave Einstein all that recognition for something so simple, especially when the biblical writers had already stated it."

 

[Melendwyr]

The only one of those examples that is specific enough to unpack is the one about Thomas. The other two examples, "the account of the night on the sea of Galilee" and "the behavior of the Apostles after the Resurrection" (except for Thomas), are too vague for one to know what parts of the NT to which you refer.

The night spent by the Apostles on the sea of Galilee is one of the most famous sections of the New Testament. It's a very specific and topical reference. I'm sorry you're not sufficiently familar with Christianity to recognize it.

 

[jjramsey]

The night spent by the Apostles on the sea of Galilee is one of the most famous sections of the New Testament. It's a very specific and topical reference. I'm sorry you're not sufficiently familar with Christianity to recognize it.

Or the account goes by a more familiar name that you've chosen not to use for some reason. About the only things I can think of that roughly fit are the account where Jesus calms the storm or the accounts where Jesus walks on water. Now do you want to play guessing games or are you going to give the actual Bible chapter-verse references so that we know what you are talking about?

 

[cyborg]

He compares Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence to 2 Peter 3:8. He says, "It's hard to believe that they gave Einstein all that recognition for something so simple, especially when the biblical writers had already stated it."

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So he doesn't have a clue about Special Relativity either.

 

[Melendwyr]

Or the account goes by a more familiar name that you've chosen not to use for some reason. About the only things I can think of that roughly fit are the account where Jesus calms the storm or the accounts where Jesus walks on water. Now do you want to play guessing games or are you going to give the actual Bible chapter-verse references so that we know what you are talking about?

Even rudimentary knowledge of the passages in question should make it plain which one I'm talking about. Will you stop playing the fool so we can get down to the discussion?

 

[jjramsey]

Even rudimentary knowledge of the passages in question should make it plain which one I'm talking about. Will you stop playing the fool so we can get down to the discussion?

Quite simply, I'd rather know for sure what parts of the NT to which you refer, rather than try to guess at your intent. It should be trivial for you to come up with chapter and verse references.

 

[Chicken Pot Pie]

Research is important in science. On Mr. Clayton's page "Checkable Biblical Accuracy", he states:

"In each of the following cases, the Biblical writer had an opportunity to either state the widely held erroneous belief of his day, or to state a factually true description. In each case what was stated was true, demonstrating knowledge beyond the writer's ability and thus necessarily from God."

In one example, toward the bottom, he claims:

"The creation sequence - plants, water creatures, birds, mammals, man, in that order. (Gen 1:11-28) Most had man first. All varied from correct concept."

Many of you know that Gen.2:4-25 tells a different order, with humans being created before the other animals. Perhaps Mr. Clayton truly read his bible with "brevity" and skipped over that section?

("Context!" cries the ghost of my English teacher...)

I say it's sloppy research. My 6th-grade son could do better.
IMHO, his argument is a non-sequitur. (from above, "In each case what was stated was true, demonstrating knowledge beyond the writer's ability and thus necessarily from God.")

 

[cyborg]

"The creation sequence - plants, water creatures, birds, mammals, man, in that order. (Gen 1:11-28) Most had man first. All varied from correct concept."

Many of you know that Gen.2:4-25 tells a different order,

Not only that it's not the correct sequence according to what we can derrive from the fossil sequence anyway. Plants before water creatures? Plants before the sun? Birds before lizards? Yeah that's correct...

I say it's sloppy research.

No ****.

 

[thebutcher]

Please read this www dot holysmoke dot org/cretins/marty0.htm

 

[Iamme]

define "we" and offer some evidence.

"We" are the human beings who are creators of things, like architects, mechanical designers, etc.. You didn't follow that, eh?

Evidence? Hmmm. I have to go back and re-reference my post. Be back in a minute.

 

[Iamme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme
"I feel that God and science is not an "either-or". God IS science. God MADE science. God used science to create. Science could not have created without 'instruction'.

God IS instruction. It is rather odd how, with anything else to do with life on this earth of ours, we would never believe that anything complex that WE create did not come from instruction ( mechanical engineers, architects, etc.). Yet, we want to believe that somehow the universe itself did it all without instruction? "


define "we" and offer some evidence.

Iamme:
Evidence? There is none to a close minded skeptic. You can't prove God. But if you are open to the possibility, and have reason to believe that the universe just didn't pop into existance from nothing. And you see that there is an order to things. And then this order to things developed complex perfection like flowers, or ever green trees with that perfect shape, or perfectly shaped crystals that have perfectly flat sides (do you realize what the odds are against molecules lining up by the millions in a flat plane?). I could come up with more stuff but you get the picture.

What I say proves nothing to anyone who believes that it seems okay logically that all this happened and started with nothing. But arguments can be absurd, also. I could say that you don't exist and I'd like you to prove that you do. You CAN'T prove you exist. Not really. The only thing you can do is THINK that you exist. Even if *I* think you exist and you think you exist, and so does everyone else, based on descriptions, that still doesn't prove it. We could all be programmed to believe you exist...that's all. Or, I could be programmed that everyone else is programmed to say certain things so that I think a certain way about what I see, hear, feel, smell, etc.

Atheists think they have all the answers, but really have nothing because they can't even prove what the building block...the foundation to everything...even is. How can anyone say beyond any certainty that some higher power did not do it all, when they can't begin to come up with an explanation of how this occured?!

It's possible, yes, that there IS some explanation that is not supernatural. But how, until that time comes, can anybody dismiss, without second thought, the possibility of a greater power than us. That be akin to a monkey thinking IT is the highest power. (of course... they are not...obviously). So then why should humans think that THEY are the top of the totem pole? Hmmmmm?

 

[prewitt81]

But if you are open to the possibility, and have reason to believe that the universe just didn't pop into existance from nothing.

Strawman - That the universe popped out (or was willed out) of nothing seems to be the creationists' view. Science says that there is no way under our current understanding to predict what the early universe was like.

I don't see the similarity of man/god to monkey/man. Monkeys can see men, interact with them, and, as much as their reasoning allows, can tell when man affects something as compared to when something happens by other factors. I don't see a god or gods, have never interacted with one, and can't tell the actions of a creator (benevolent or otherwise) from random chance and science.

 

[thebutcher]

Quote:
Evidence? There is none to a close minded skeptic.

What about to those of us open minded skeptics? We want evidence too! Why don't close minded believers do some research and dig up some evidence? Apparently John Clayton has none on his entire site. He has gone to great lengths in an attempt to show us what scientific evidence is, but has not offered any to back his idea.

You CAN'T prove you exist.

Don't waste you time trying! ITS A FACT!