re: Why isn't the Trinity mentioned in the bible?

quote:

---

When you make an assumption that cause exists and build your finite universe on the assumption, you do eventually have to go back and prove your assumption which I did not hear.

---

Science and religion work in opposite directions.

Science, ideally, begins with no assumptions. I say "ideally" because climate "science" pretty clearly has some assumptions. but I digress. Science simply tries to understand and explain those things which are observable and the underlying principles behind them. Why does water run downhill? What is wind? Why does an apple fall down and not up? What are stars? Why do planets orbit stars? And so on. And the more science learns, the more there is yet to discover.

Religion, otoh, begins with at least two assumptions: God exists, and God's ways, thoughts, and will are knowable by humans via revelation from God. Neither of these assumptions is provable in a scientific sense. That's not to say they aren't true. They may be. But they are not provable. They are the foundational assumptions of religion, and from there religion seeks to answer important questions about life, such as why are we here? Is there a purpose to my life? What is the moral way to live my life? What happens when I die? And so on

So to address your point, religion begins with the assumption that there is a Cause (God), and then a further assumption that such a Cause is comprehensible to humans.

Science does not assume a Cause, and my hunch is that most scientists would be surprised to find such a Cause.

quote:

---

Science does not assume a Cause, and my hunch is that most scientists would be surprised to find such a Cause.

---

The scientific method isn't even needed if you dismiss causes. Why does water run downhill? Dunno, it just does, no cause necessary.

There are differences, although I disagree that they work in opposite directions. From the Christian perspective God set up rules for his creation; science is just the tool to figure out those rules.

quote:

---

I think that your point is probably true, as to “revealed truth“ religions (e.g. the Abrahamic faiths

---

I started to type "The 3 monotheistic religions" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but I was searching for the World Cup game on TV and was in a hurry.

quote:

---

I started to type "The 3 monotheistic religions" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but I was searching for the World Cup game on TV and was in a hurry

---

I usually use “Abrahamic religions,“ because there are numerous smaller religions that fall under that umbrella, other than the “Big 3.“. e.g. Samaritanism.

All share the same basic premises

quote:

---

Understood, but if you dismiss Big Bang as a cause from Science then you might as well dismiss gravity as a cause for why water runs downhill.

---

My point is not that science doesn't discover causes. My point is that science doesn't assume causes.

Religion, otoh, BEGINS with at least two assumptions, assumptions which are impossible to prove scientifically

quote:

---

My point is not that science doesn't discover causes. My point is that science doesn't assume causes.

---

I think you're trying to say that it doesn't assume the specifics of a cause. The method absolutely assumes that a cause exists; there's no need for it otherwise.

And while science doesn't assume the specifics of a cause, scientists are people. They sometimes absolutely DO let their worldview drive their "science", as you've already acknowledged with climate change. I don't believe climate change is unique in that regard.

Does the Old Testament support the idea of the Trinity?

Many biblical questions discussed. The Naked Bible Podcast.

quote:

---

My point is that science doesn't assume causes.

That's a hysterically ridiculous claim.

---

I'm always willing to learn something new.

What are some causes that science assumes which have not been verified experimentally?

Your perspective is as a single user. You are not responsible for monitoring the dumbfrickery of +240k board users. And I generally don't care what people say to one another on this board, but it's a little more complicated when the name calling involves an admin. Both of our run-ins involved you casting aspersions upon my character as a human being. You even sent private messages to the website accusing me, as I recall of being a racist, and of being biased. You also "warned" others about me on this forum. On a personal level, I say who GAF? People say worse things on here every day. But an admin cannot function properly if his reputation as an admin is damaged. If it had been up to me, you would have been permanently banned, although I did not push for that.

That's my perspective