Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Thanks for the answer | Acts 1:9 | johnboy36 | 190373 | ||
Thanks Brad, although I don't think I need to replicate my birth to scientifically prove it took place. There is overwhelming evidence that it did. For instance first hand accounts of living people (my parents, medical staff etc), testable and measurable evidence such as my DNA fingerprint which proves I am a decendant of both of my parents and also the total absence of any evidence to support an alternative theory of how i came to be on this planet. If I try apply these methods of testing to my original question "How did Jesus ascend into heaven" i find that i cannot. I therefore conclude that Jesus did not ascend into heaven. It's just a made up story. |
||||||
2 | Thanks for the answer | Acts 1:9 | Morant61 | 190374 | ||
Greetings Johnboy! May I interject into this discussion? You make a lot of logical leaps that are not valid in your last post. Brad's point was simply that one cannot 'repeat' your birth; therefore, it cannot be proven in a 'scientific' sense. Science demands observation and repetition. If one accepts as a given that you do in fact exist, it is certainly true that the evidence, as stated in your post, would be consistent with a natural birth. However, we could not observe or repeat your birth, so we could never really 'prove' it in the scientific sense. There are other possible, though less likely, explanations for your existence. Perhaps you were cloned, and not actually born at all. :-) Perhaps you came from another planet, and only appear to be human. Obviously, I am using hyperbole to make a point, but the point is valid. Your other logical leap is to dismiss the historical evidence that Jesus did in fact ascend into heaven. Scripture itself is historical evidence. There is no evidence that He did not ascend, so how can you simply dismiss the only evidence that you actually have? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Thanks for the answer | Acts 1:9 | johnboy36 | 190375 | ||
For something to be scientifically proven, it only has to be confirmed with testing to a degree of certaintly that is high enough to disregard all alternative theories. it doesn't have to be replicated. we can prove that the earth orbits the sun but we can't make it happen in a lab. As I said, there is no evidence to support the alternative theories behind how i came to exist, such as be being a clone. Finally you say there is no evidence that he did not ascend, this is not evidence to support the fact that he did, if it was then i could argue that i cannot prove that the tooth fairy doen't exist, therefore she does. |
||||||
4 | Thanks for the answer | Acts 1:9 | Morant61 | 190376 | ||
Greetings Johnboy! Firstly, we have apparently been taught different definitions of the word 'proven'. :) I was always taught that something is not proven unless it is repeatable and observable. One may theorize that something is true and provide evidence to support that theory, but one cannot prove the theory unless one can test it, observe it, and repeat it. You used the illustration of the earth orbiting the sun. Of course, we cannot put the sun into a lab. However, we can use math and observation to predict that the earth will orbit the sun in a certain amount of time. We can then either observe from earth, or actually go into space to test our theory. After the earth orbits the sun, we can then test it again - so we can repeat it. :-) Secondly, I never said that there was evidence that you were a clone. I said that you being a clone is an alternate explanation for how you came into existence. The facts as you stated them about your existence did not 'prove' that you were born. There are other possible explanations. Finally, your tooth fairy argument is cute, but it misses the point entirely. There is no historical evidence that the tooth fairy actually exists. However, there is historical evidence that Jesus ascended into Heaven. That evidence is in the form of eyewitness accounts. Is is scientific to disregard that evidence for no reason? It would be different if one had competing eyewitness accounts. However, there is no historical evidence that He did not ascend, so on what basis would you simply discount the evidence that does exist? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||