Science VS the Bible

E Hess

Member
Jul 25, 2020
11
17
44
Asheville
✟15,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. My point of view on science and religion is this. I apply the scientific method to everything as much as I can even the bible. What I can't explain I take on faith. I'll give you an example.

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect, causing some sort of reaction in atmosphere that would incinerate the cities with enough heat to melt stone. My point is, what's to say God didn't put the meteor on course to do the same thing?

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

Here's a little joke before I go. I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.
 

Handmaid for Jesus

You can't steal my joy
Supporter
Dec 19, 2010
25,582
32,974
enroute
✟1,395,508.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I always say science is the study of how God did things.
I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.
That is funny. ^_^
How about this...God said LIGHT BE! and BANG! Light was. ^_^
 
Upvote 0
Jun 18, 2011
3,097
664
San Francisco Bay Area
✟65,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. My point of view on science and religion is this. I apply the scientific method to everything as much as I can even the bible. What I can't explain I take on faith. I'll give you an example.

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect, causing some sort of reaction in atmosphere that would incinerate the cities with enough heat to melt stone. My point is, what's to say God didn't put the meteor on course to do the same thing?

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

Here's a little joke before I go. I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.
I always say science is the study of how God did things.

That is funny. ^_^
How about this...God said LIGHT BE! and BANG! Light was. ^_^
I always say science is the study of how God did things.

That is funny. ^_^
How about this...God said LIGHT BE! and BANG! Light was. ^_^
I like to think that science just explains the complexity behind God’s creation.
I am and christian and a scientist. I do believe the Big Bang Theory. I believe that GOD spoke, and bang!,it happend.
 
Upvote 0

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect

As if to say that because something is understood, God is not needed, ergo no God.

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

True, still I like to wonder about laws of physics at play in dimensions not perceptible to us. It could be what we call "miracles" simply fall into this category. Or maybe I'm just too intrigued that Christ marvelled at the centurion in Matthew 8:8-10. His use of "faith" in v10 seems to suggest something more akin to understanding things natural to a supernatural realm.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 18, 2011
3,097
664
San Francisco Bay Area
✟65,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. My point of view on science and religion is this. I apply the scientific method to everything as much as I can even the bible. What I can't explain I take on faith. I'll give you an example.

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

It was basically to the effect of rather than an act of God destroying the cities, a meteor skipping across the atmosphere could have had the same effect, causing some sort of reaction in atmosphere that would incinerate the cities with enough heat to melt stone. My point is, what's to say God didn't put the meteor on course to do the same thing?

My personal point of view is that God probably does use the laws of physics to achieve a lot of what he wants to do. Does that mean he's limited by them? Of course not. God wrote the book on physics as it were and he's transcendent, capable of doing anything he wants regardless of any physics.

Here's a little joke before I go. I found a way to reconcile the bible with the Big Bang theory: God sneezed.
Religion and true science have the same goal. That goal is.....the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Science is about now. It is about how a phenomenon repeats itself now. History is about a past fact which basically cannot be proved, especially individual activities. Some mass activities may leave a trail, usually involving an ancient site conserved by a sheer fluke.

Christianity is about a future which humans don't have the capability to reach. That's why we need a God to tell us. God told us in the way how a historical fact is conveyed.

In a nutshell, humans can only get to a present fact more efficiently. Humans don't actually have the capability to reach a past truth, not to speak a future truth. Christianity is about a future truth from God but conveyed historically, instead of God showing up to keep everyone informed of. It is so because God needs to abide by the same covenant as we do, which is today's humans in majority rely on faith to be saved.

Exclusively,
Histories, which mostly cannot be proved, are made of testimonies with a historian as the gatherer from the supposedly eyewitnesses accounts.

Science, though can be proved, are made of testimonies from a few scientists (only they have the proof but not the majority) and for the rest believe with faith instead of evidence. If we need proof we need to join these few scientists in a particular field of science.

Christianity are made of testimonies from the supposedly eyewitnesses accounts. It is conveyed in the same way as histories.

Science is not for the majority to prove or validate a truth. It is for a few to approach a truth, then for the rest to get to without proof. We all rely on a few who have a direct contact with a truth in order to get to such a truth, science or not. It is so because humans lack the capability to get to the direct evidence of a truth of any kind.

One of Satan's biggest lies which the atheists buy into is, "show us the evidence if you want us to believe".


2 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV2011)
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Science, though can be proved, are made of testimonies from a few scientists (only they have the proof but not the majority) and for the rest believe with faith instead of evidence. If we need proof we need to join these few scientists in a particular field of science.

That's a very bizarre and totally inaccurate description of science if you don't mind me saying so. Science is not the testimony of a elite few, it is publicly verifiable. Science never claims absolute truth - scientific theory can only be disproved, never proved - it simply provides the best working model of a physical phenomena that we can have at any one point in time and is always subject to modification or replacement by a better theory as new facts are known. Religion can learn much from science in this kind of humility.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
it is publicly verifiable

Who ever verifed? you?

Did you ever verify that black holes exist? How many humans ever verified this piece of truth?

The truth is, only a few professed in black holes can have the privilege to use the expensive equipment to get to the evidence of black holes. The rest (i.e., 70 billion of them) don't rely on evidence to get to this truth!


Science is falsifiable because it is repeatable. No one does that unless you yourself are a scientist. This is the simplest fact you failed to grasp.

Re-read my post before you fart!

As I said,

Science, though can be proved, are made of testimonies from a few scientists

Since when I said science cannot be verified? Stay off your false accusations!


Frankly show us your estimation!

How many humans know for a fact that black holes exist?
How many humans verified this piece of truth?!

or simply,

How many humans actually verified any science, in terms of percentage?

Apparently, science is not intended to be a mean for the majority to reach a scientific truth. It is the testimonies from scientists which are carrying and conveying such a truth!

Atheists, like you, are brainwashed without their own full awareness. Who can do this, by blinding the mass? A capable being as I can tell!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hmmmmmm...

Who ever verifed? you?
The scientific community verifies, or disproves, scientific theories.

The rest (i.e., 70 billion of them) don't rely on evidence to get to this truth
You're out by a factor of 10. Which would be important if you were doing science.

"Science, though can be proved, are made of testimonies from a few scientists"

Scientific theories cannot be proved, only disproved. They are provisional working models that explain the facts as we know them in the best way possible, but are always subject to new facts being discovered.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The scientific community verifies, or disproves, scientific theories

Are you talking in dreams? They are thus scientists, as I said. Why repeat what I said!

Answer frankly then, in your estimation what percentage is the scientific community in among all humans?

To make it simply for you. How many humans ever verified the truth that black holes exist, including those in the scientific community? Tell us!!!!!!!!!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Not true. As long as a science can be predictably modeled with falsifiability, it is considered proved!

Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one.

A theory can be reinforced through the scientific method, and a theory can be falsified when evidence provides a better explanation than what we already have.

That 2 + 2 = 4 can be proved.

That diseases are caused by germs can be demonstrated through observation and rigorous testing--but not proved. It is entirely possible that disease could be caused by something that we just don't know yet, but all of our observations and data consistently point to the causes of diseases being from things like viruses, bacteria, microscopic fungi, parasites, prions, etc. Germ Theory is not proved, it is reinforced through the scientific method and thus we can be very confident in the veracity of the theory--but it is not proved. Proof wold eliminate any possible future modification of the theory through the discovery of new data and observation. Which is why a theory can't be proved, it can only be inferred through the scientific method--the strength of that inference can be very very strong; but a theory will always be open to possible modification according to the discovery of new information, or even falsified should such new information drastically change the way that we have to think about the world around us.

It is this very principle of fallibility and the modification of theory that is the foundation of science as a discipline. If a scientific theory could be proved, it would no longer be science. Science works because it can change on the basis of new discoveries, new information, new observations, new tests.

On the other hand, 2+2=4 can't change. It is proved.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Jok

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2019
774
658
47
Indiana
✟42,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix.
Even the most prominent figures of empiricism (John Locke), the scientific revolution (Newton) and the Enlightenment (Voltaire) did not claim that scientific questions were the same category as metaphysical/religious questions. This false dichotomy developed later on. Even if they rejected the Bible it wasn’t because of science, they argued that the job of science was to answer the “Hows” of the universe, whereas the “Whys” and speculation about what underlies the hows of the universe were metaphysical questions. To fairly represent them Locke & Voltaire did argue that metaphysical questions were completely useless and beyond human knowledge (I don’t think Newton shared that opinion), but none of them claimed that science was a competitor to those questions. Voltaire was the biggest figure of the Enlightenment and he made Locke’s positions more popular and well known, Locke was the biggest figure for empiricism (he followed Francis Bacon’s method, but Bacon actually wasn’t even a pure scientist), and Newton simply changed everything he needs no introduction.

John Locke - we can not know the substance or support that underlies the perceivable properties of things. We can’t know it at all.

Isaac Newton - I frame no hypothesis (about the whys), I do not know how the underlying force operates, I only know that this is the equation for which it is accurately described, and it may be used to predict outcomes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one.

In a sense it is. Humans don't have the ability to tell a future. If a theory can foretell without mistakes, our brain is thus sure that we detected a truth. In this case, it is a proof. This is the nature of what science itself is. You establish a theory, use it to predict. Your prediction doesn't come to pass your theory is falsified. Your prediction 100% comes to pass, it is proved.

This (the proof) signifies several things, 1, the proving process literally ends, 2. it is a truth beyond doubt, 3, no other theories proving the same can stand a chance to be a truth, unless it is a shift of paradigm (a scope change without actually falsifying the original truth). That's what science is that how it works.

As an example,

Water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. Everyone can make such a prediction before lab. This prediction will 100% come to pass (don't count in human errors), or else it's not a truth (you deserve a Nobel Prize by falsifying it). Once proved, no scientific effort nor funding will go to the research of whether water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen or something else. No other theories, say water dissolves into something else, can stand a chance to be a truth. Breaking a water molecule into particles is a scope shift without actually falsifying that water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen.

God actually applied something similar, for a truth to be confirmed. He tells a message with a prophecy, a prophet can witness such a prophecy to come to pass as a confirmation of God's message.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0