Replies

"Why does Biblical Creationism make this prediction?"

Revelation 13:15 predicts that man will at some point "give life". That is a remarkable claim that in its day might have been seen as undermining the Creator as well as being humanly impossible. It is consistent with a biblical version of ID. Man has not but may at some future point "create life". If so, ID is testable.

"Why does Biblical Creationism necessitate that this be true?"

ID and creationism assert that complexity of life and its particular order are such that they cannot arise without intelligent intervention. To find one instance of life spontaneously self-organizing would falsify this premise. It would not prove that life was not created by God, but it would prove that is not the only possible way life could have come to exist.

"Where are the accounts of these 'living witnesses'?"

It is asserted in the Greek scriptures as I am sure you are well aware. You apparently dispute the veracity of these claims. I do not feel like debating it. I believe the gospel. God lives in me. That is confirmation for me. You cannot experience this unless you first believe what I say is true.

"What evidence is there of this 'indwelling'?"

the evidence is experiential to those who experience it. All other evidence is accepted by faith. That is true of science as well.

"If it is the latter [not natural], then it cannot be considered scientific."

Math is outside the realm of nature. Is math now unscientific?

"This amounts to a completely subjective claim and as such cannot be considered scientific evidence."

Real experiences can be subjective. Further, do you put the same demands on what you accept as scientific? Do you need to experience all scientific phenomena by observing it for yourself? Or do you, like we all do, accept the word of those who have observed them?

The doctrine of the trinity asserts that God has three persons or indivisible parts.

Part of God is spirit which is something that cannot be seen (invisible), except that a spirit can take a temporary physical form. Thus even the Spirit is observable in a sense.

Part of God is so "glorious" that observing Him would cause death. This part is observable in a limited sense.

The God that is seen is the part that "became flesh". He is the express image of the invisible God and the embodiment of the fullness of the Godhead. This is Jesus.

Jesus was seen, closely observed, heard, and touched. He is empirical evidence of God.

I am touching on theology because you are using it as an excuse to dismiss His existence as "unscientific". God is experienced in the natural realm - fully. Arguing that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic is merely a theological ploy to attempt to categorize biblical faith as being unscientific. But your argument is not a scientific one. It is philosophic.

That is OK as long as you realize that philosophy defines science.

Likewise for your point in 126:

"No one claims that these dimensions are supernatural in nature."

That is a philosophical argument. These "dimensions" contain things which cannot pass from there to here. We cannot pass from here to there. We can experience the effects of these dimensions' existence. Same is true of the spiritual.

Revelation 13:15 predicts that man will at some point "give life". That is a remarkable claim that in its day might have been seen as undermining the Creator as well as being humanly impossible. It is consistent with a biblical version of ID. Man has not but may at some future point "create life". If so, ID is testable.

That would be an observation consistent with your interpretation of the book of Revelation, but are you saying that such an observation would be best explained by your interpretation?

ID and creationism assert that complexity of life and its particular order are such that they cannot arise without intelligent intervention.

Why is this assertion made, though? What observations form the basis of this assertion?

To find one instance of life spontaneously self-organizing would falsify this premise.

But the premise thus far lacks justification.

It would not prove that life was not created by God, but it would prove that is not the only possible way life could have come to exist.

Which means that it would, in fact, not falsify Biblical creationism because you could still assert that life was created by God even if it could have come about through another means. A falsification criteria is a hypothetical observation that, if made, would demonstrate that intelligent design is impossible, not simply that another mechanism is possible.

It is asserted in the Greek scriptures as I am sure you are well aware.

Asserting the existence of living witnesses is not the same as demonstrating the existence of living witnesses. You are offering nothing but empty assertions and calling it evidence. That is not how science works.

the evidence is experiential to those who experience it.

So how would a neutral observer test for it?

Math is outside the realm of nature.

Math is a construct used as a tool.

Is math now unscientific?

Math is a tool used by science, though it is not inherently scientific in itself.

Real experiences can be subjective.

I do not argue that point, however subjective experiences do not amount to scientific evidence.

Further, do you put the same demands on what you accept as scientific?

Yes.

Do you need to experience all scientific phenomena by observing it for yourself?

No, however the ability for anyone with the requisite sensory organs to be able to make the same observations under the same conditions is a requirement for science.

Or do you, like we all do, accept the word of those who have observed them?

I accept the word of scientists because thus far the scientific method has proven reliable. If I wished to replicate the observations of scientists, I could follow their documented procedures to do so. I do not need to rely on nothing more than someone's "feelings" to have confidence in a claim; I can look at the independent research of multiple individuals producing the same results, and -- if I so desire -- I could replicate those results on my own.

You are asserting that your religious beliefs are true and calling that science. Science doesn't work that way, and your methodology is no more valid than a Muslim or a Hindu claiming that their particular religious beliefs are true and claiming that their personal experiences with respect to their religion stands as scientific evidence.