• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does God Exist? - John Clayton

From the Why I Left Atheism page of the site:

I asked this professor what the process was by which the original life--the original living cells upon the earth--came into existence. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur? Once again, this man said, 'Young man, that is not a question that falls within the realm of science." . . .
Click to expand...

What?! I'm wondering if this guy misremembered what the professor said. Of course it's a question that falls within the realm of science. It may not be feasible to answer the question conclusively, although experiments like those by Miller and Urey may help, but it falls within the realm of science.

As I considered and thought about these things, I found that I could not find a contradiction. I tried that whole year and years after to find a contradiction
Click to expand...

I can manage to find a few contradictions, such as the women going to the empty tomb in Mark purchasing their spices the morning after the Sabbath, while the women going to the tomb in Luke purchase their spices before the Sabbath.

to find some kind of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. I just simply was not able to do it.
Click to expand...

Since he is interpreting the Bible fairly liberally on scientific matters, this is more understandable. Still, the more natural interpretations of the Noahic flood story, for example, don't fit with geologic findings.

I don't see anything new on this site.
 
Mr. Clayton is trying to say that he can prove the existence of the god in the bible through evidences in nature and the universe. Check out Evidence For the Design In The Universe from Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. in Astronomy

He states, "that science and faith (our understanding of what the bible says) are symbiotic relationships. They reinforce each other. They support each other." "There is a tremendous support for belief in God from the field of science."

He originally stated that this was not a "god of the gaps" argument, but ultimately that is all the program is.

Too many either or fallacies.
 
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?
 
Iamme said:
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?
Click to expand...

define "we" and offer some evidence.
 
And I'm sure you discovered all this about God all by yourself, either through direct contact or through a series of observations and logical connections you can post here.
 
Iamme said:
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'.
Click to expand...

I feel that each believer in God has his/her own different opinion about what God is and what God does, such as Mr. Clayton believes that science and faith are symbiotic relationships.

Iamme said:
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.).
Click to expand...

If "God IS science" and instruction, then let's say science is instruction.

Iamme said:
Yet, we want to believe that somehow the universe itself did it all without instruction?
Click to expand...

No, we want to know how the universe or God "did it all," and I feel that Mr. Clayton fails to answer that question. In his video, "Which God Should We Serve?" he says that you must "read the document" (the Bible) and compare it to other religious texts. And because of clarity (based on the Fog Index), a lack of insecurity statements (which could be debated), and the brevity (he explains that god did not think the writers would understand and so anyone interested in actually reading it would not be able to ever understand), it is set apart from other religious texts.
 
And because of clarity (based on the Fog Index), a lack of insecurity statements (which could be debated), and the brevity (he explains that god did not think the writers would understand and so anyone interested in actually reading it would not be able to ever understand), it is set apart from other religious texts.
Click to expand...

So in other words the guy hasn't seen any other religious texts? The Bible the most clear and brief of all religious texts?!
 
cyborg said:
So in other words the guy hasn't seen any other religious texts? The Bible the most clear and brief of all religious texts?!
Click to expand...

He claims to have studied many other religious texts and have compared them all with the Bible in this manor (based on clarity, a lack of insecurity statements, and brevity), and this makes the Bible correct somehow. :confused:

Also another video was posted today.
 
Hate to say this - but for brevity and clarity, nothing beats the Tao Te Ching.

That is, if you have the ability to engage your brain for something other than cataloguing sports achievements.
 
Science is primarily a methodology. Religions have their own methodology. The two are not compatible -- particularly science and Christianity, as Christian doctrine contains a number of teachings that are particularly impossible to reconcile with scientific thought.
 
With over 34,000 denominations of Christian, I'd be a bit wary of suggesting that a) there is a single Christian doctrine, and b) that science is incompatible with Christianity (as a whole).

Just being pedantic...
 
Unless they reject all of the NT teachings about the significance of faith, they're incompatible with science.
 
And some denominations do just that.

Otherwise, the scientists of our past who have claimed to be Christians are 'not really true Christians'... right?
 
zaayrdragon said:
And some denominations do just that.

Otherwise, the scientists of our past who have claimed to be Christians are 'not really true Christians'... right?
Click to expand...
Not at all -- they're not true scientists. At least, not all of the time.

Humans are so very good at doublethink. They can compartmentalize almost anything.
 
... Let me see if I get this straight:

If a scientist acts, part of the time, in a Non-Christian (by your definition) manner, and part of the time in a Non-Scientific manner, then they are True Christians, but not True Scientists?

Confusing...
 
zaayrdragon said:
... Let me see if I get this straight:

If a scientist acts, part of the time, in a Non-Christian (by your definition) manner, and part of the time in a Non-Scientific manner, then they are True Christians, but not True Scientists?
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea? All I said was that they're not true scientists.
 
jjramsey said:
Would you be kind enough to tell us what you think those NT teachings are?
Click to expand...
Specific examples include, but are not limited to, the account of the night on the sea of Galilee, the behavior of the Apostles after the Resurrection, and especially Thomas' reaction and the rebuking thereof.

The teachings establish certain assertions about faith, belief, and doubt; those assertions are not compatible with the scientific method.
 
Melendwyr said:
Specific examples include, but are not limited to, the account of the night on the sea of Galilee, the behavior of the Apostles after the Resurrection, and especially Thomas' reaction and the rebuking thereof.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom