• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Science VS the Bible

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by E Hess, Jul 25, 2020.

  1. E Hess

    E Hess New Member

    11
    +17
    United States
    SDA
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. TenthAveN

    TenthAveN New Member

    91
    +91
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    I like to think that science just explains the complexity behind God’s creation.
     
  3. Skittles

    Skittles Member

    98
    +113
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Science vs Faith is a false dichotomy

    Science is the discovery of Gods created order. To the extent it pursues truth it cannot be contrary to God since God is absolute truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. loveofourlord

    loveofourlord Newbie

    +2,385
    Christian
    Private
    The conflict comes when science such as evolution and such come into conflict with people's beliefs.

    People would rather worship their own understanding of the world, then what the world teaches us of god.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. Handmaid for Jesus

    Handmaid for Jesus You can't steal my joy Supporter

    +29,031
    Protestant
    Private
    US-Others
    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. ^_^
     
  6. exitstageright

    exitstageright Newbie

    +642
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    I am and christian and a scientist. I do believe the Big Bang Theory. I believe that GOD spoke, and bang!,it happend.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
    • List
  7. Rachel20

    Rachel20 Active Member

    342
    +285
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    As if to say that because something is understood, God is not needed, ergo no God.

    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.
     
  8. exitstageright

    exitstageright Newbie

    +642
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    Religion and true science have the same goal. That goal is.....the truth.
     
  9. ChristianGirl_96

    ChristianGirl_96 Well-Known Member Angels Team Supporter

    +1,304
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    In Relationship
    This is why I do not teach science.
     
  10. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +270
    Canada
    Christian
    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: Jul 27, 2020
  11. Hmmm!

    Hmmm! Active Member

    305
    +177
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  12. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +270
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    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,

    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: Jul 27, 2020
  13. Hmmm!

    Hmmm! Active Member

    305
    +177
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    Hmmmmmm...

    The scientific community verifies, or disproves, scientific theories.

    You're out by a factor of 10. Which would be important if you were doing science.

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +270
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    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!!!!!!!!!
     
  15. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +270
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    Not true. As long as a science can be predictably modeled with falsifiability, it is considered proved!
     
  16. Hmmm!

    Hmmm! Active Member

    305
    +177
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    That makes no sense.
     
  17. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +18,776
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    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
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  18. Radagast

    Radagast comes and goes Supporter

    +9,564
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Verifying science is what you do (or should do) in science class at school and college.
     
  19. Jok

    Jok Well-Known Member

    681
    +564
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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.
     
  20. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +270
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    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: Jul 30, 2020
Loading...