Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Peace!

Well another way to think of faith is as the witness of the Holy Spirit to the human heart. That's how you just know things.

how do you deal with someone who just knows something falsely.

what if i just know atheism is correct?

As Craig say the witness of God's Holy Spirit is self authenticating. It is veridical and unmistakable though not necessarily indubitiable or irrestible:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=6489

see Craig's comment in red lettering.

Then the Holy Spirit is lying to somebody ldo.

The witness is like intuition at times.

You can't deny just knowing occurs for some people in mathematics solving math problems and you can't deny other people's "spiritual aha" moments.

Sure. We also cannot deny that these 'moments' would sometimes occur whether or not there was a Holy Spirit, nor can we deny that these feelings of 'I just know' have a horrific track record for accuracy, which means there is either not a Holy Spirit or it is not very good at getting these tihngs right.

Specifically this:
"...the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

In other words, what is visible is made of things which are invisible or unseen. Back in the day, there was no way for anyone to know this.

Maybe some scientific minds would like to comment?

Peace!

Kinda like when a fish shoves his Ax on a 9 high flop vs your KK. 'Cause he just knew that Ace would hit the river.

Sounds like the bible is talking about the atom.

I think its even more accurate than that but we have to use reason to refine our intuition moments. With intuition you can hit a target but reason allows it to operate more precisely (like throwing darts.)

Now we're on the right track. Thanks Splendour!

I think what you have here is a good example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy. I read a few commentaries on Hebrews 11:3 and none seem to portray this as a form of biblical scientific foreknowledge.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/hebrews_113-5.htm

If science never found out about atoms then you could just say: 'aha! whatever we're made out of is invisible, therefore the bible was correct!' I believe AIF refers to this as an 'ad-hoc hypothesis'...

I don't think Paul was talking literally of atoms or dark matter or whatnot, I think it's talking of the Spirit or some other metaphor.

Taking passages like this literally are problems when you run into passages like ones that the world is held up by pillars.

Now there are certain important passages, such as Wisdom 11:21 "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, number, and weight." This led early scholars, ie monks, to know that the world was ordered in such a way, they just had to find it. It's a great drive knowing the world is ordered and not chaos.

I can deny that. Solving math problems means proving your solution. Guessing the correct answer, even if you are usually right, is not solving the problem.

Thank goodness this isn't a math question!

Peace!

You've found one bit in the bible you are interpreting to be refering to atoms - the same book also talks about the universe being made in seven days. The fact that your way of deciding which should be taken literally and which shouldnt is based on 'getting the right answer' is a clear indication that, whatever your claim is, it isn't science.

I don't mean the proving aspect. I mean in the cognitive apprehension. You need to guess general forms before starting a problem.

http://www.arch.virginia.edu/~km6e/a.../hw-notes.html

always try to use multiple perspectives to view a situation

I think the initial "guess" in forming your faith is so important that in some sense it justifies zeal or dogmatism.

An interesting article by Polkinghorne:
http://incharacter.org/features/john...een-realities/

It's a bit awkward, since Paul wasn't writing in English, but I don't think it's easy to interpret this as referring to molecules, atoms, etc. For one thing, the passage in its context:

It doesn't really makes sense for Paul to just throw in a reference to atoms there, does it? What prompted it? What purpose does it serve?

But besides that, I think there's too much emphasis being placed on the final clause, when it's the second one that gives the sentence meaning: ...the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

"The world was prepared by the word of god, therefore atoms, yo." Makes no sense. It seems far more likely that Paul is saying either that the word of god is not visible to us, or, more likely, that the ways of god are unknowable to us - the world was prepared by the word of god, so that what is seen was made in a way we can't understand.

Edit: It occurs to me just now that Paul may be saying 'We have no way of knowing why things happen'. If by 'that what is seen' he refers to events, rather than just visible things, then that becomes a plausible interpretation also.

Think about it this way. What if Paul is just God's sensing instrument. This could be God saying I made everything from what appears to be nothing but he's in control of nature to such a degree he can just pronounce creation into being.

The importance of Paul as a sensing instrument is that Paul's own interpretive faculties (his ability to reason) are so great that it makes him the most able person to prophesy for God about theophilosophical principles.

NotReady said in a post a while back that Paul most likely made it into the top 6 people ever born for intellectual ability. That's why you can trust Paul more than most because in addition to the Spirit guiding him he has incredible reasoning functionality. The average Christian can never approach his degree of functionality so you do see a lot of doctrinal and practical errors being made by them.

Please bump this thread when you find a passage that says, "And at the center of the non-visible is a positive rock while the negative orbits above like clouds in the sky."

Because that will impress me.

But until then, I'm going to dismiss this as the same sort of far fetched interpretation of an especially vague passage that has left people in awe of Nostradamus for centuries now.

You need to read Geisler then. He explains how some prophecy while not sharp still has lots more that are amazingly accurate. He contrasts this with Nostradamus and Jeanne Dixon who didn't have very precise prophecies or a very good fulfillment ratio.

and yet tons of people still buy into Nostradamus...how could anyone be fooled?