One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

---

So, in your mind, because science can fail sometimes, would that make faith healing better than decades of research into medical science? Can god cure amputees, or should we continue our research into bionic limbs? There are gaping holes in this argument, SW. Just because the Bible says its infallible, does not make this automatically true. Just because thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens and can recount their experiences in vivid details, corroborating the stories of everyone else abducted throughout the years, does this make their claims true?

---

Scripture doesn’t ever conflict with empirical science, in fact it establishes a foundation for its practice, scripture only conflicts with scientific theories of origins. That’s where I’d rather take the testimony of scripture over those who change their theories and explanations weekly it seems. When someone tells you, “I was wrong every other time in the past, but trust me I am right now!”, should you believe them? I’ll pass.

The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct. Though we know much about how gravity works, we won't even pretend to say that we know everything about it. Not only is that arrogant, but we will undoubtedly be proven wrong if we persist in that manner. The mistake that religion makes is that it claims to be right, no matter what. Even though the Holey Babble states that there was a flood that covered the earth, geologists have discovered that this never has been the case in the history of life being present on earth. Though geologists might learn new things all the time about the properties of the earth, knowing how floods affect certain areas of the world is mere childsplay to them.

---

You know what’s interesting? You seem stuck on the idea that science can fail sometimes. This is true, but to a certain point. For instance, since we’re talking about the age of large bodies such as galaxies, do you know how old scientists think our universe is? Before we had the means to truly measure it, the Biblical account was thought to be the correct age, for there was no other explanation beyond that book for a while. And then we found out that earth was older than previously thought, and we learned about how planets were created, how suns were created…all because we observe these things all the time through things called telescopes. We can see the different phases, calculate the time it takes for these things to happen…and in doing so, we could find out other things, like the age of stars, of galaxies, and even the universe itself. 6000 grew to 10000 grew to 100000 and eventually we reached into the millions of years, as new evidence became available. Eventually, we came to the number that we have today: approx. 14 BILLION years for the age of the universe. You see…the age never decreased or fluctuated in its calculations. In fact, as our science and instruments became better and more fine-tuned, so did our understanding of the cosmos. And, to be honest, if we’re STILL wrong about the age of the Universe, it only means that it’s older than 14 billion years, not younger.

---

Age is not an empirically measurable property of matter; it’s all based upon assumptions.

You don't get to decide what's empirical and what's not. I'm okay that you don't like my evidence, but that's all you have to say.

You just proved my point though, the age they thought it was a century ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, ten years ago, and now are all different. Why should I believe someone who changes their story hundreds of times? “I was wrong a century ago, I was wrong 50 years ago, I was wrong 25 years ago, I was wrong 10 years ago, but trust me…I am right now!”

They never tell the world to trust them, though I'm sure they appreciate people like you running around spouting off what you think they say. They (scientists) just think it's cool that they can go about calculating the age of the universe. I think you're just mad that the calculations have never been close to what the Bible has said about the earth's age. For me, it's just more lemon juice squeezed in the eye of the almighty invisible and grouchy Yahweh.

So…okay, it’s impossible to truly know, but to go and accept what you seem to believe as fact, that is, the Biblical account, then that would be very irresponsible of us.

Not at all, you’d be using an infallible source to correct the errors in our fallible source, that seems very rational to me. Non-believers are trying to use a fallible source to correct the infallible source, which is completely backwards.

Even though humankind can 100% trace their lineage back to Homo Erectus without any error, that's fallible? You need to work on that one, and I'll keep using my "fallible" resources and evidences in the meantime.

No, the light created on day 1, which proves you can have days without the Sun. I love the story of Moses getting mooned by God, it’s a great passage.

Unless God used a giant desklamp to light the sunless earth, then where is that light coming from? That's what I'm asking. You can have days without the sun, granted, but what about that light he created? Was he saving it in a plastic bag until he could channel its glow into the sun?

So if the Bible were wrong, we would fall off the earth? Is that the gist of what you’re saying?

Well there is a way to argue that yes, but what I was actually saying was that if the Bible were not infallible, it’d be impossible to know anything about reality at all.

You mean I can't learn about gravity without the Bible? I can't know that my wife is hot unless the Bible explicitly tells me so? What the fuck are you on about?

---

So I should believe there’s a Bigfoot just because someone showed me a photo of him and had on hand a plaster mold of his foot? I see TV ads about Messing with Bigfoot all the time…are they trying to tell us something new about ol’ Sasquatch?

---

Reason and logic can exist independently of Bigfoot, they cannot exist independently of God, so I am not sure where you were going with that example, I do like watching, “Finding Bigfoot” though, good show.

Oh please. I'm supposed to take your word on it that if there was no God, that I'd be completely helpless and unreasonable?

Why should I believe anyone when they tell me there’s an invisible, grumpy old man in the sky? Why do you?

I don’t believe there’s an invisible, grumpy, old man in the sky.

Well played.

Why do you hold your scripture to a higher standard than the holy books of other nations? That seems a little…odd. If the other two mentioned are at a lower standard, then why don’t you believe in them first before the Bible? Do you even understand what I was asking here?

Because they do not even pass my lower standards, so there’s no reason to apply the more rigorous standard to them; not what you were asking?

I'm supposed to take you seriously when you tell me the Bible is true when you don't even hold other scripture up to the same light of scrutiny? I'm afraid you're a little biased in your claims.

This falsely assumes that God is desperately trying to save as many people as He can, that’s not taught in the Bible. I really doubt there are 2.3 Billion Katy Perry fans in the World though.

But at the same time, Katy Perry doesn't commit genocide against people she doesn't like. We could do this all day.

Billions of people have been abducted by aliens? That seems a bit…high.

You think these numbers are supposed to mean something to me, as if having more believers collectively will create god out of thin air, kinda like believing in Fairies in Neverland will keep the little buggers alive.

My best friend during school is a Mormon; they’re tough to discuss things with. I was raised Christian, but became a Reformed Christian about 5 years ago.

Mormons are tough because they do this: for just about everything, and then proceed to talk at you, thinking you are always in need of teaching. Remnants of my past still come up to bite me in the ass from time to time.

So...you believe in Christ like you always used to...but differently? I'm not familiar with Reformed Christians, but from talking with you it seems a little fundamental yet still somewhat reasonable. Am I close?

---

I’m sure many people see claims that way, which is true about claims concerning god. I’m saying that just about these small time claims that require a lower standard of evidence. If Jimmy tells you he had chips on his lunch break, but then you find out later that he actually ate crackers because you found the empty wrapper on his desk, is it really that big of an issue? So Jimmy was false on his claim, but there was no need to call him out on it. The same cannot be said for bigger claims, such as someone who tells you that he/she can read minds.

---

Ok, I am following you so far, but how do you determine whether a claim requires a higher or lower standard? Surely it cannot be determined by people, since truth is independent of us.

And truth will sometimes always elude us. I'm okay with saying that we probably won't ever know everything for a fact. But, the truth is, we determine the validity of claims every day, and they are always judged on a personal level. A courtroom judge has higher stakes, but he/she must do the same, even if the entire truth is never completely uncovered. What a person determines as having a higher or lower standard of evidence is his or her own prerogative, as far as I know.

---

That actually doesn’t change the status of the claim one iota. Whether one person or two hundred or even one billion claims that a dragon is real, the facts always speak for themselves, not majority rule. There is no democracy when it comes to pure, undeniable fact, and the fact is that claiming the existence of dragons when there has been no proof of them in the past still makes the claim an outrageous one, if not a silly one.

---

Yes, I am aware that truth is not determined by majority, but are you really suggesting you do not believe in anything that you’ve never personally seen?

Absolutely. I've never been to Sydney, Australia, but there's no reason for me to disbelieve its existence. The proof that it exists is demonstrable: I've seen pictures, movies, met people from Sydney, and there's a robust, verifiable history associated with the place that is well-documented.

On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find a person who has been to the Pearly Gates to shake hands with St. Peter, so we cannot verify with demonstrable evidence that the place is real. Same goes for Mt. Olympus and the River Styx.

Think back to what I said about Alien Abductees. Do you believe they were all abducted by aliens? Why or why not?

No, I think it’s a supernatural experience, but not one with aliens. However, if 2.3 billion people all claimed to have been abducted, I think you’d join me in thinking something remarkable was going on, no?

Yeah, the remarkable thing is that billions of people would be claiming something they have no evidence for...oh, wait, that already happens!

You didn’t make it up though; Genesis 1 clearly says there was light on day 1, prior to the creation of plants.

I made up that part about the greenhouse. So I lied...you're going to argue with me about a lie I deliberately made?

---

That’s putting on the assumption that Science deliberately lies. Therein lies your problem, no pun intended. (That little guy you named science in that story actually sounds more like the Catholic Church; the science community isn’t out to hide anything, and if you believe they do, then I know a few doctors who can help you overcome your delusions and paranoia.)

---

I never said he intentionally lies, and it doesn’t matter either way, if there’s a possibility he’s wrong (even by accident), and we know there is a very high possibility he is, then he cannot be used to prove my boy Scripture is capable of making mistakes too. Right?

Your made-up boy science may have a high possibility of being wrong...though I'm not so certain you're correct in regards to natural science or the observable world. Sometimes there isn't a possibility of being wrong...sometimes there's just a lack of evidence that hasn't been found yet to supplement what's already known.