America's Future: Science or Faith?

Isn't Morgan Freeman an atheist? Kinda odd poster if so lol. I would say technology changes everything, but it cannot change God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in the last days people will be traveling back and forth, and knowledge will be increased.

Science helps us tremendously, so science should always be in our future. As far as faith goes, we need Jesus now more than ever!

Cappadocious said in post 1:

America's Future: Science or Faith?

Click to expand...

There is no actual conflict between science and Biblical faith, for nothing proven true by science has ever proven anything in the Bible to be false.

Also, people can know that God exists by seeing everything else that exists (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-4). The universe couldn't have created itself from nothing by physics, because of the 1st law of thermodynamics. So something outside of physics had to have created the universe. The term spirit is used to refer to that which exists but is outside of physics. So what created the universe was a spirit (John 4:24, John 1:3). And this has to be an uncreated spirit, because nothing, not even a spirit, can create itself from nothing, for in order to create itself, it would have to already exist. So just by being able to see the universe, people have no excuse for denying the existence of an uncreated spirit, also known as God (Romans 1:20, John 4:24, Psalms 19:1-4). And God must have eternal power (Romans 1:20), because the 1st law of thermodynamics requires that the energy in the universe is eternal.

Because knowing that God exists is the only reasonable response to seeing the existence of the universe (Romans 1:20), when educated and intelligent people refuse to admit that God exists, this is only because they are intentionally choosing to be unreasonable, choosing to be foolish, regarding God's existence, because of their human pride, their unthankfulness to God, and their desire to continue in sinful actions (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 14:1). But there is no salvation in simply believing that God exists (James 2:19). Believing in Jesus Christ, the human/divine Son of God, and his sacrifice on the Cross for our sins, and his rising physically from the dead on the 3rd day, is the only way for people to have their sins forgiven so that they can avoid having to go to hell when they die (John 3:16,36, Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Cappadocious said in post 1:

Science or Faith?

Click to expand...

This false dichotomy most often comes up with the question of "evolution or creationism?" But the answer to even this question doesn't have to be either/or, for it can be both/and.

That is, an old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with miraculous creation, just as an automated process created by a human (e.g. a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that human sometimes performing a task himself directly (e.g. painting some pictures by hand). I.e., evolution per se can simply be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God sometimes creating species miraculously.

Some people ask why would God wait millions of years for something to evolve from a one-celled organism, when he could just instantly create it? He could do that for the same reason that he has a human start out as a one-celled organism: a zygote in its mother's womb. He then has it only gradually develop through natural means into an embryo, and then into a fetus, and then a baby, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult. And he has other animals develop gradually in a similar way. And he has plants start out as seeds. So it must give God pleasure to see organisms develop naturally over time, just as it must give him pleasure to also sometimes create plants and animals miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, like he did in Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:20-27, during 3 of the 7 literal, 24-hour days of Genesis 1:3 to 2:4.

-

Creationism can include what could be called a double-gap theory, meaning that there could have been 2 gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the 1st gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the 2nd gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the 1st heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some 4.5 billion years could have occurred, in which God could have allowed his own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose naturally on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously, whenever he wanted to (cf. punctuated equilibria).

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about 12,000 years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm, such as a comet strike, had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so that the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate that rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of 6 literal, 24-hour days (some 12,000 years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land, and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens, after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

Then, only about 6,000 years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there, the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can simply refer to a certain "land": e.g. Genesis 2:11). After that, God planted the plants of the local, Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9), and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then he created an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

Because Adam was created only about 6,000 years ago (based on Biblical chronology), yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about 200,000 years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens (or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) as far back as about 200,000 years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we don't consider to have been fully human like us (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis), could have all been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) over millions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

And this doesn't even get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens (or similar or far more advanced life-forms) could have been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) billions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about 14 billion years old, and it contains something like 100 billion galaxies, each containing something like 100 billion stars. So even if only one star out of every 10 billion stars has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) billions of years prior to his beginning of his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) on the earth.

Cappadocious said in post 1:

Science or Faith?

Click to expand...

It is sometimes claimed that we must choose faith over science, because the Bible says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

But note that the Bible doesn't actually require that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All it requires is that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago. For various scriptures make it possible to estimate the year BC that Adam (as opposed to the earth) was created, by working back from the year BC that Solomon's temple began to be built. Historians say that it began to be built about 966 BC. And the scriptures show that it began to be built 480 years after Israel's Exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). And Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt before the Exodus (Exodus 12:40-41). And Israel entered Egypt when Jacob was 130 (Genesis 47:9). And Jacob was born when his father Isaac was 60 (Genesis 25:26). And Isaac was born when his father Abraham was 100 (Genesis 21:5). And Abraham was born when his father Terah was about 70 (Genesis 11:26). And Terah was born when his father Nahor was 29 (Genesis 11:24). And Nahor was born when his father Serug was 30 (Genesis 11:22). And Serug was born when his father Reu was 32 (Genesis 11:20). And Reu was born when his father Peleg was 30 (Genesis 11:18).

And Peleg was born when his father Eber was 34 (Genesis 11:16). And Eber was born when his father Salah was 30 (Genesis 11:14). And Salah was born when his father Arphaxad was 35 (Genesis 11:12). And Arphaxad was born when his father Shem was 100 (Genesis 11:10). And Shem was born when his father Noah was 502 (Genesis 11:10 and Genesis 7:6). And Noah was born when his father Lamech was 182 (Genesis 5:28-29). And Lamech was born when his father Methuselah was 187 (Genesis 5:25). And Methuselah was born when his father Enoch was 65 (Genesis 5:21). And Enoch was born when his father Jared was 162 (Genesis 5:18). And Jared was born when his father Mahalaleel was 65 (Genesis 5:15). And Mahalaleel was born when his father Cainan was 70 (Genesis 5:12). And Cainan was born when his father Enos was 90 (Genesis 5:9). And Enos was born when his father Seth was 105 (Genesis 5:6). And Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 (Genesis 5:3).

Adding up the numbers of years above, we see that Adam was created about 4114 BC. This lines up with the fact that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC. If Adam was created about 4114 BC, this means that 6,000 years since Adam's creation were completed back at the end of about 1886 AD, and that the 7th millennium began about 1887 AD. (But this doesn't mean that the millennium of Revelation 20:4-6 has started yet.) Also, it is curious that the next year (1888 AD) Blavatsky published her book (The Secret Doctrine) referring to the "New Age". Also, it is curious that the Mayan calendar begins in 3114 BC, exactly 1,000 years after 4114 BC. Also, the numbers of years in the scriptures referenced above show that Abraham (who was first promised the land of Israel by God: Exodus 32:13) was born about 1,948 years after Adam's creation, just as the modern state of Israel was established in 1948 AD.

--

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC (subsequent to Adam's creation about 4114 BC), by "civilization" is meant "the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained" (Webster's, a print version). "The 4th millennium BC saw major changes in human culture. It marked the beginning of the Bronze Age and the invention of writing, which played a major role in starting recorded history. The city states of Sumer and the kingdom of Egypt were established and grew to prominence" (Wikipedia -- 4th millennium BC).

Regarding "civilization" being defined by Oxford Dictionaries as the "most advanced" stage of human social development and organization, our current human civilization (4th millennium BC to the present) is the most advanced stage of human social development and organization, compared to all known prehistoric (pre-4th millennium BC) stages.

--

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC, by "current" is meant that civilization which began in the 4th millennium BC and continues on today, as opposed to any pre-Adamic human civilizations which may have existed from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

If there were pre-Adamic civilizations, they could have reached as high a level of technology as in our society today. For the Bible says that "there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things" (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11). And even our future technology could have already been invented during past eons, for "that which is to be hath already been" (Ecclesiastes 3:15).

But all past-eons technology on the earth could have been obliterated by God, leaving no trace of it, just as all of our own technology today (and in our future) will eventually be obliterated by God, when "the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10b). Here "earth" could mean just the surface of the earth, for the planet itself could continue on forever (Ecclesiastes 1:4, Psalms 104:5, Psalms 78:69b), so that the future "new earth" (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) could mean a new surface of the earth.

--

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC, by "human" is meant human civilization in general, as opposed to the civilization of any particular people (e.g. Aztec civilization).

Also, by "human" civilization is meant civilization started by humans as opposed to any non-human animals. For preceding the 1st human civilization, there could have been non-human, mammalian civilizations some 65 to 2 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent horse-like creatures (cf. the strange horse-like creatures in Revelation 9:17-19). These could have rebelled against God and then been banished from this planet, and forced to live, perhaps, in underground bases on the far side of this planet's moon or on the next planet out from the sun. For the future army of 200 million weird horse-like creatures in Revelation 9:16-19 will have to come from somewhere.

Preceding the first mammalian civilization, there could have been reptilian civilizations some 250 to 65 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent dinosaur/dragon creatures (cf. Satan being a dragon in Revelation 12:9).

And preceding the first reptilian civilization, there could have been amphibian civilizations some 350 to 250 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent frog-like creatures, who could have rebelled against God and become unclean spirits (cf. the frog-like creatures/unclean spirits in Revelation 16:13-14).

And preceding the first amphibian civilization, there could have been insect civilizations some 450 to 350 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent locust-like creatures (cf. the strange locust-like creatures in Revelation 9:3-10), who could have rebelled against God and been banished to a cavern deep underground (cf. the sealed pit in Revelation 9:1b-3,11).

--

Someone might ask: "But don't only humans have the hands required to build things and civilizations?"

The various strange creatures mentioned above could have human-like hands. For they aren't the same as the horses, locusts, frogs, etc. which we can see today. And the Bible shows that non-human creatures can have human-like hands (Ezekiel 1:5-14).

When they contradict one another, do we dismiss science, or do we question our interpretation of faith? I think those old earth folks did something like that. How far and how literal are certain sections of Genesis? Because thats a fairly big debate between the old earth and young earth folks in the science realm.

ChristsSoldier115 said:

When they contradict one another, do we dismiss science, or do we question our interpretation of faith? I think those old earth folks did something like that. How far and how literal are certain sections of Genesis? Because thats a fairly big debate between the old earth and young earth folks in the science realm.

Click to expand...

It's usually pretty to easy to see when people do this though. When they start trying to make their Bible match what they think science has proven. I love science, i always have. But i believe Gods word above what any science will ever tell me. I don't need my Bible to match science. What i need is Jesus!

jacksknight said:

It's usually pretty to easy to see when people do this though. When they start trying to make their Bible match what they think science has proven. I love science, i always have. But i believe Gods word above what any science will ever tell me. I don't need my Bible to match science. What i need is Jesus!

Click to expand...

Yes and Amen.

Unfortunately the Bible tells us that man will,love the creation more than the creator. I think we see this more and more as evolution becomes the god of science. And man becomes more enamored with the earth than with God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Science and faith are not contradictory

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

jacksknight said:

It's usually pretty to easy to see when people do this though. When they start trying to make their Bible match what they think science has proven. I love science, i always have. But i believe Gods word above what any science will ever tell me. I don't need my Bible to match science. What i need is Jesus!

Click to expand...

The problem with science is that it battles with established assumptions most of the time. Kepler had a heck of time a time coming to terms with Mar's orbit being slightly off, that was because he was under the general scientific assumption that the planets orbited the sun in perfect circles. He couldn't deny the data in front of him so he eventually said the science at the time was wrong on it. It was Kepler that proved the planets orbtied around the sun in elliptical patterns.[which is a fancy way saying its more oval than circle]

ChristsSoldier115 said:

The problem with science is that it battles with established assumptions most of the time.

Click to expand...

Another problem with science is people have to be involved to make it usable. Sometimes that's fine, sometimes not so much.

jacksknight said:

Isn't Morgan Freeman an atheist? Kinda odd poster if so lol. I would say technology changes everything, but it cannot change God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in the last days people will be traveling back and forth, and knowledge will be increased.

Click to expand...

I don't know if he is an atheist or not but he swears like a drunken sailor (my apologies to drunken sailors).

ChristsSoldier115 said:

When they contradict one another, do we dismiss science, or do we question our interpretation of faith? I think those old earth folks did something like that. How far and how literal are certain sections of Genesis? Because thats a fairly big debate between the old earth and young earth folks in the science realm.

Click to expand...

The purpose of science is for you to test out your beliefs, no matter how sacred they may be. Many religions beliefs can't be tested out scientifically, true. But some can, especially claims about geophysics. In the case of astronomy and evolution, science has well debunked the biblical geophysics. So we need to change our interpretation of Scripture. But many fundamentalists aren't willing to do that. They set up their religious beliefs as the sole criterion to judge the validity of scientific research and findings. That's obvious a complete abuse of science and also the Bible.

rjs330 said:

Yes and Amen.

Unfortunately the Bible tells us that man will,love the creation more than the creator. I think we see this more and more as evolution becomes the god of science. And man becomes more enamored with the earth than with God.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

In a way, you are right. You have the universe vs the traditional or classical Christian model of God as he is in his own nature: wholly simple, immutable, without even the shadow of movement, without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly nonrelational. Then you have the universe with its vast profusion of complex structures and interrelationships. When compared with the classical model of God, the universe holds far more aesthetic interest for persons than the traditional image of God, which seems too tame, stale, static, and one-dimensional. So I believe we need to better reconcile the universe with God. I believe the universe is best thought of as the body of God.

TX_Matt said:

Science and faith are not contradictory

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well it depends on what science you are referring to. The bible is not really a science textbook. Science is man made philosophy with terminology and theories and hypothesis grown from the universe that God made.

I'm not against science or scientific study at all. Man is seeking knowledge of the universe and the way it works. Many really interesting discoveries have happened through science which has improved our lives.

But the problem is that science should prove the awesomeness of the creator. But instead it is used to try and discredit the Bible and the God of the Bible. Man is much more interested in the creation than they are the creator.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Hoghead1 said:

The purpose of science is for you to test out your beliefs, no matter how sacred they may be. Many religions beliefs can't be tested out scientifically, true. But some can, especially claims about geophysics. In the case of astronomy and evolution, science has well debunked the biblical geophysics. So we need to change our interpretation of Scripture. But many fundamentalists aren't willing to do that. They set up their religious beliefs as the sole criterion to judge the validity of scientific research and findings. That's obvious a complete abuse of science and also the Bible.

Click to expand...

Well I won't go into it here as,I have said a great deal on the evolution of birds thread, but evolution has not debunked the Bible. The bible,debunks evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

rjs330 said:

Well I won't go into it here as,I have said a great deal on the evolution of birds thread, but evolution has not debunked the Bible. The bible,debunks evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, see, you took the same illegitimate approach that creation-science people take. You used your religious beliefs, which you take to be unquestionable, as the sole criterion from which to judge the validity of scientific work. That is a complete and total misuse of science and also the Bible.

rjs330 said:

Well it depends on what science you are referring to. The bible is not really a science textbook. Science is man made philosophy with terminology and theories and hypothesis grown from the universe that God made.

I'm not against science or scientific study at all. Man is seeking knowledge of the universe and the way it works. Many really interesting discoveries have happened through science which has improved our lives.

But the problem is that science should prove the awesomeness of the creator. But instead it is used to try and discredit the Bible and the God of the Bible. Man is much more interested in the creation than they are the creator.

Click to expand...

Science should not be concerned with anything outside of naturalistic forces. It is outside the realm of science to make any kind of statement regarding the existence of God.

TX_Matt said in post 18:

Science should not be concerned with anything outside of naturalistic forces. It is outside the realm of science to make any kind of statement regarding the existence of God.

Click to expand...

Actually, what science is missing, in its search for a "Theory of Everything" which can unify all the physical forces in the universe, is precisely spirit, so that by continuing to exclude the whole idea of spirit, science can never hope to understand the universe at its most fundamental level, or what its ultimate origin was: "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit . . . even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all" (Ecclesiastes 11:5).

The relationship between the spiritual and the physical may be analogous to the relationship between energy and matter. Just as the relationship of energy to matter is summarized by the equation e=mc^2, meaning that immense amounts of energy are congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny particle of matter, so the relationship between spirit and energy could theoretically be summarized by the equation s=ec^3, meaning that immense amounts of spirit may be congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny photon of energy. All energy being based on spirit would make sense, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and in him everything consists (Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28).

When science's equations regarding such things as the Big Bang singularity, black holes, and quantum entanglement require the inclusion of infinities, these infinities should not be seen as "failures", but as pointers to something which goes beyond the boundaries of the physical: i.e. spirit. If science ever becomes able to describe spirit mathematically using proportional numbers rather than infinities, this could lead to new technologies (e.g. spiritual power plants, spiritual bombs), just as when science became able to describe atomic nuclei mathematically, this led to new technologies (e.g. nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs).

Just as energy consists of both particles (photons) and waves (electromagnetic waves) at the same time, so the basis for all energy, spirit, could consist of both particles (spiritons) and waves at the same time. If spirit is equivalent to consciousness, and consciousness consists of logic, emotion, and memory, then spiritual waves could consist of 3 different sine waves (logic waves, emotion waves, and memory waves) which could be interlocked at 60-degree angles, just as electromagnetism consists of 2 different sine waves (electric waves and magnetic waves) interlocked at a 90-degree angle. But by our current, strictly-physical-based mathematics, a spiritual wave or spiriton would show up in a calculation as an infinity, and so it could be mistakenly rejected by our current science as a "failure". It is possible that by creating a mathematics which involves 5 dimensions of space-time, the apparently infinite value of a spiritual wave or spiriton could be reduced to a proportional value.

String Theory has shown that it is mathematically possible that space-time has more than 3 spatial dimensions. Because of observations such as Daniel 5:5, John 20:26b, and Luke 24:31b, the spiritual realm could be a 4th spatial dimension in which spiritual entities are able to move about without being seen by physical entities in our 3 spatial dimensions, because our physical eyes and light as we know it extend in only 3 dimensions. The spiritual dimension would be higher than our 3 dimensions in the same sense that a 3rd dimension is higher than 2 dimensions. And so from the spiritual realm, our physical realm may appear flat (or flatter), just as from 3 dimensions, something in 2 dimensions would appear flat. An entity with access to the spiritual dimension could do such things as enter only part of himself into the physical realm (Daniel 5:5), or suddenly appear in a locked room (John 20:26b), or suddenly disappear (Luke 24:31b). This ability would apply not only to spiritual beings (1 Corinthians 15:44, Luke 24:39), but also to any spiritual wave or particle.

If spiritual particles exist, they could turn out to be "the God Particle" of science. While the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has reached a high-enough energy level so that a "God Particle" (i.e. a Higgs boson) has manifested itself, its observed qualities might ultimately be able to be described only by equations involving infinite values, so that its qualities and actions could ultimately be seen as "impossible" and "spooky", instead of science finally admitting to the existence of a substance which is spiritual. And spirit wouldn't have to be seen by scientists as some weird, foreign substance, but rather as the most fundamental substance of even their own selves (1 Thessalonians 5:23). And could spirit also be the "dark matter" and "dark energy" which together make up 96% of the universe, but which science can't yet observe directly or explain?

The really sad and dangerous thing is that even if science does eventually determine that "the God Particle" (or some other particle, detected at even higher energy levels) is a spiritual particle, which science could come to call the "spiriton", some scientists could still refuse to believe in and submit themselves to YHWH God of the Bible, saying that the existence of spirit per se doesn't require that there is one infinite, conscious spirit-being called YHWH God (John 4:24, Mark 12:30, Deuteronomy 6:5). And in its subsequent experiments with spirit, science could come into contact with the evil spirit-being called Lucifer (Satan), who could manifest himself in some future, ultra-high-energy LHC experiment and claim that he is the true, beneficent God of mankind and must be worshipped instead of YHWH. In this way, a nascent spiritual science could be hijacked and employed by Lucifer and his current worshippers as one part of their future deception by which the world will eventually be deceived into consciously and openly worshipping Lucifer (Satan, the dragon) and his human son the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") as God (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36), instead of YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36).

-

The unity of mankind which will occur at that future time could be like the unity of mankind which occurred at the time of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6). And there could even be a future equivalent to the Tower of Babel, which could be built in the literal, rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq). For Lucifer could show mankind how to build there a huge tower device, a spiritual machine the size of the Empire State Building which will be able to send into the sky an incredibly powerful spiritual beam analogous to a laser. Near the end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Lucifer could tell mankind that it will need to employ this huge weapon during an impending battle against YHWH (Revelation 16:14b, Revelation 19:19). Mixing some science fiction with some ancient lies of Gnosticism, Lucifer could tell mankind something like:

"YHWH will soon come down to the earth in his gigantic spaceship which is shaped like a Borg Cube [cf. Revelation 21:16]. He is coming to enslave you and turn you all into Borg-like automatons. But this mighty Tower Device will be able to blow his Borg Cube and him to bits with its spiritual ray. Then we can focus the Tower Device on any point of empty space until it burns in space-time a hole, a portal through which I will lead your spirits out of this vile material universe which YHWH made to be our prison. And I will lead you back up into the purely-spiritual realm of the Pleroma [i.e. Heaven], where you can live as gods in bliss, doing what you please, forever, just as you had done with me for all ages past, before we by mistake fell into YHWH's trap of this material universe".

Before Jesus' 2nd coming, Lucifer could prove the power of the Tower Device to mankind by letting the Antichrist and his False Prophet (of Revelation 19:20) use it to blow up some large asteroids and even some moons of other planets, so that mankind will go into its battle against YHWH in full confidence that it will be able to destroy him. But when the battle comes, the device won't work against YHWH (cf. Psalms 21:11, KJV). Instead, Jesus Christ (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) will descend from heaven and take total victory in the battle (Revelation 19:11 to 20:6).

Science & religion deal with different questions. Forcing them to answer the same questions leads to trouble.

I do think many people in the US - particularly younger demographics - are trending toward abandoning religion. Given the way some religious groups talk & act, I can't really say it surprises me. But religion assuming the role of science is certainly another issue for many, I imagine.