The Scientific Method


  1. Absolutely amazing

  2. May I share my opinion from another perspective. ....Many Atheist's do not know that Jesus is God and is the 2nd person of the Trinity. ...Many Christians who believed in Jesus, are shocked also, that Jesus is God, I was. ... So many decent Atheists have a problem with God, because they had a bad relationship with their earthly Father. ..In my opinion here, ...the Atheist will consider Christ as God / Man / Savior,.. by the proof in Scripture,.. and hopefully their eyes, will be opened by your prayers.

  3. Actually, the scientific method absolutely applies to historical claims. They apply in a step that you have forgotten that comes first. Namely; Is the historical claim one that is scientifically possible?
    If I claim that last week I was at a party with some of my friends, that is a scientifically possible mundane claim, and the nature of the proposed scenario is known to happen in the real world. That is why we allow it to go through to the next stage of the process of evaluation.
    But if I claim that last week I teleported myself to the planet Neptune by will alone, and there I had a party with members of 86 different alien species, you wouldn’t even consider listening to my eye witness account. My claim has not been demonstrated to be scientifically possible, and as such it is not allowed to go through.
    Can you imagine in a court of law, where the historical event of a murder was investigated, and someone gave the testimony that a car drove by, and a passenger shot the guy, and someone else claims that a UFO flew by, and an alien zapped the guy with laser lightning from its eyes. Do you think for a second they would take the last testimony and proclaimed eyewitness serious? Of course not. The scenario has not been demonstrated to be possible scientifically, and it is not worthy of consideration.
    You may use the evidential method to consider how likely it is that there existed a man named Jesus who was a normal mortal man with new ideas and whom was killed. But that is not the Jesus Christians believe existed. They believe in a god that could raise the dead and walk on water and whom resurrected and went to heaven. That is not a claim demonstrated to be scientifically possible, and as such it will never be treated as a historical claim worthy of investigation through testimonies. Never.

    1. Jillum89==>Is the historical claim one that is scientifically possible?
      If God is included in such a hypothesis, yes it is possible that he acted in history, for example by being responsible raising Jesus from the dead.

      Other claims have the same possibility of God as the cause that cannot be adequately explained otherwise :

      Peasant teenager in France Circa 1420's
      "I was in my thirteenth year when I heard a voice from God to help me govern my conduct." She stated seeing heavenly personages and heard voices described as sent from God and followed their instructions

      Joan of Arc walked up to her sovereign, and almost upon request obtained an army, won strategically significant battles; gets that timid sovereign crowned rightful King of France in a city 150 miles inside of enemy territory, all completed in a year; with her influence irrevocably altering the destiny of at least two major nations.

    2. “If God is included in such a hypothesis, yes it is possible that he acted in history, for example by being responsible raising Jesus from the dead.” But that’s a useless tautology. In essence; if God was real, God would be real. That’s of no use. Let’s test if you actually think it’s useful by inserting it in the analogy; If in that court scene I described, you would have said “But if UFO’s and aliens are included in such a hypothesis, yes, it is possible that they acted in history, for example by being responsible killing the guy with laser lightning from their eyes.” What possible usefulness does that statement have?

      You don’t get to imagine things to be possible and just “include” them as you please. You are probably fully aware of that. You need to demonstrate what is actually possible. Not just assert it. The claims in the bible – although historical and said to have happened in the past – are not demonstrated to be even possible, and as such we absolutely can reject them on scientific grounds. You can have your hypothesis all you want. But this isn’t about what is hypothetically true in your imagination where you can “include” anything you want. This is about what is most probably true in reality. And in reality, things are not “included”; they are observed and/or demonstrated.

  4. "scientifically possible" is a nonsense term. The only way to determine scientifically possible is to be able to do SCIENTIFIC experiments on a given claim. Are you saying that healing is not "scientifically possible"? I'd disagree, considering that doctors prescribe medicine every day that cures and eliminates disease. So healing was not scientifically impossible. Jesus is said to have appeared in a closed room with the doors locked. Is teleportation "scientifically impossible"? At the time of this writing Physicists have achieved the quantum teleportation of entangled photons. It's plausible that within a few hundred years, structural matter will be able to be teleported. So was teleportation "scientifically impossible?" Obviously it wasn't.

    What you reveal by saying you won't consider anything that is not "scientifically possible" is a dogmatic bias that creates a closed logical loop. The event can't be scientifically tested, and I only consider things that are scientifically possible currently. What's considered scientifically possible is changing and expanding every day.

    You claim that the acts of Jesus have not "demonstrated to be scientifically possible." so what SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT has been performed to "demonstrate" that it was scientifically impossible? Or do you mean something else by "demonstrated"? Certainly could couldn't mean that you've decided these things based on how you feel about them... You used the word DEMONSTRATED, so certainly you have some SCIENTIFIC evidence produced by a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that DEMONSTRATES your point. I'd love to take a look at that evidence. I'd be happy to consider any evidence that you are willing to provide.

  5. This is not a common atheist objection to Jesus. This is a common misunderstanding by theists of the atheists arguments against theism when science finds it's way into the discussion. It's also a common misrepresentation of theists used by theists who want to set up straw man arguments. Not sure which is happening here, but either way it's iff the mark (as is common for this page and theists talking about atheists in general). Which is kinda sad because this page purports to engage with atheists yet constantly gets it wrong.


Post a Comment