• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

Someone said something about a holographic man building machinery that could study the world where the projector is. I like that answer a lot, it's clever, and that is exactly what scientists are doing, but it's a futile effort.

Now obviously all the holographic man talk is just a metaphor for the one person who asked why I would believe a hologram could understand, smh, but how much info do you really think science is going to figure out about the quote, "real" world by increasing our perception from .05% to 1%. Not much.

A lot of people don't understand why I "bash" science and have a problem with it so I will explain. Science is helpful right ? Without science I wouldn't have this laptop to write on or satellites and the stuff they said science has given me. Sure science can help us create new technology that can be used to create clever gadgets and things, but I could just as easily argue that science has helped us create destructive things that destroy and pollute the planet. Don't worry though, that's not my objection to science.

Here is the biggest fundamental flaw of science:

By definition, science is the study of the observable universe. It gives you the impression that the universe exists out there, you know, all around you, and up into the heavens as you glance up at the night sky noticing the sparkles of glimmering stars in vast distance the light having taken millions of years to reach you providing you a rare window to the past.

Sounds poetic doesn't it? Science is not only providing useful technology, but science is providing you a world view just like religion does. Science gives the false, misleading, worldview that portrays people as an insignificant blunder of the universe which exists outside of them. Key word there EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THEM, as if they were not intricately connected to it.

Let me tell you something my friends, the universe does not exist outside of you. It exists within you! If you want to go exploring the universe you don't need to shoot rockets into the sky trying to pierce the veil. You merely need to look within yourself. Your own science confirms this let me explain:

You receive sensory info from your senses about the world and they are sent to your brain as electrical signals. Your brain interprets the data and then creates the reality you are experiencing. Everything out there that you are experiencing as your reality is the interpretation, the raw source for the data exists within you! The universe exists within you! The reality you are experiencing is merely your interpretation of the universe, but you can change how you interpret the universe by changing your beliefs about it, and this is how you can change or alter your reality. And so the saying goes, mind over matter, for the ancients knew it's your beliefs that are creating your reality.

When you understand this there is no need for the holographic man to attempt to figure out where the projector is, for the projector exists within him and it projects onto his walls of perception his reality which passes through his belief filters.

And to clarify my use of the term absolute truth, I define that as something we have all experienced. In the example I used being born from a womb and not knowing where you are.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Well, you see, I see it quite differently. Theism, first and foremost, must do one thing I can't fathom at all -- in order to explain the simplest things about what you call "creation," theism must first posit that the most wondrous thing of all -- and all-powerful, omniscient, immaterial, timeless, intelligent, purposeful and creative thing must exist ------ without any explanation at all.

And of course, once you've allowed that impossible-to-explain precondition, well everything else is monstrously simple, isn't it?

Yet, while it is certainly true that science hasn't got all the answers -- and for all I know might never have all the answers, nor might their even necessarily BE an ultimate first answer -- science has managed to show over and over and over again how wondrous "creativity" is easily possible and explicable with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act. You don't know or understand this, of course, because science isn't your bag. But fortunately for the rest of us, it doesn't depend at all upon your understanding for its success.

So you believe that: "with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act", which must, by logical necessity, pre-exist the existence of the material universe, cause the existence of the material universe. Evidently you can easily explain to us ignorant Christians how this is scientifically demonstrated as true and how "believing" that scenario is more rational than "believing" that an Eternal, Omnipotent Being (Almighty God, out of the council of His own free will, according to His own good pleasure) created the universe ex nihilo - there's our explanation.
 
Last edited:
So you believe that: "with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act", which must, by logical necessity, pre-exist the existence of the material universe, cause the existence of the material universe. Evidently you can easily explain to us ignorant Christians how this is scientifically demonstrated as true and how "believing" that scenario is more rational than "believing" that an Eternal, Omnipotent Being (out of the council of His own free will, according to His own good pleasure) created the universe ex nihilo - there's our explanation.
You are literally describing the most minute details of a million piece puzzle while only holding a handful of pieces, all the while denying the credibility of many of the few pieces we do have that seem to allude to a wholly different picture.


This is not productive. This is why religion is an impediment to progress.

If there is a 'god'(whatever that might mean), it will be science that finds him.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
So you believe that: "with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act", which must, by logical necessity, pre-exist the existence of the material universe, cause the existence of the material universe. Evidently you can easily explain to us ignorant Christians how this is scientifically demonstrated as true and how "believing" that scenario is more rational than "believing" that an Eternal, Omnipotent Being (Almighty God, out of the council of His own free will, according to His own good pleasure) created the universe ex nihilo - there's our explanation.
Remarkable how you can't see it. I have to accept (with blind faith, to be sure) the possibility of a very few basic bits and rules," which you find preposterous, while you hae to accept (in your own words) "an Eternal, Ominipotent Being (Almighty God, out of the council of His own free will, according to His own good pleasure)"

As @Satans_Serrated_Edge just suggested, you seem to think wondrously impossibly great stuff should exist necessarily, while the simplest, most trivial things require thos wondrously impossibly great things as explanation!

I have to say, and I mean no disrespect, but this does not demonstrate great clarity of thinking.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Remarkable how you can't see it. I have to accept (with blind faith, to be sure) the possibility of a very few basic bits and rules," which you find preposterous, while you hae to accept (in your own words) "an Eternal, Ominipotent Being (Almighty God, out of the council of His own free will, according to His own good pleasure)"

As @Satans_Serrated_Edge just suggested, you seem to think wondrously impossibly great stuff should exist necessarily, while the simplest, most trivial things require thos wondrously impossibly great things as explanation!

I have to say, and I mean no disrespect, but this does not demonstrate great clarity of thinking.

While I appreciate your offering of your opinion, you have not responded as to how science has convinced you that those "very few bits and rules by which the bits act" pre-exist the existence of the material universe. And how these "bits and rules" bring into existence the material universe since this is your position.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
While I appreciate your offering of your opinion, you have not responded as to how science has convinced you that those "very few bits and rules by which the bits act" pre-exist the existence of the material universe. And how these "bits and rules" bring into existence the material universe since this is your position.
Nor have you responded as to how you suppose that the most amazing thing of all -- and omnipotent, omniscient God pre-exists. Not only that, you have said nothing about how, since "pre-exists" implies time, that God you suppose must either have experienced no time whatever (in which case, wherefore change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change), or -- the only other alternative -- that this timeless God appeared entirely simultaneously with its own creation, which must have included time.

Give me that explanation, and I'll provide you with mine (although -- I must in fairness tell you that I have already done so many times, universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful like "God is Great!")
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Nor have you responded as to how you suppose that the most amazing thing of all -- and omnipotent, omniscient God pre-exists. Not only that, you have said nothing about how, since "pre-exists" implies time, that God you suppose must either have experienced no time whatever (in which case, wherefore change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change), or -- the only other alternative -- that this timeless God appeared entirely simultaneously with its own creation, which must have included time.

Give me that explanation, and I'll provide you with mine (although -- I must in fairness tell you that I have already done so many times, universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful like "God is Great!")

It's telling that your are presenting an argument, in the form of a paradox, in an attempt to prove that belief in God is illogical. You know, like: "God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big that He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."

There are many characteristics attributed to the Christian God pertinent to our discussion:

1. SELF-EXISTENT: God has no cause; He does not depend on anything for his continued existence.
2. TRANSCENDENT: God is entirely distinct from the universe.
3. IMMANENT: Though transcendent, God is present with and in the world.
4. IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises.
5. ETERNAL: God is perfect in that He transcends all time and temporal limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to time.
6. INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit.
7. CREATOR: God is the One through whom all things have come into existence; by His unbounded power and knowledge He created finite existence ex nihilo and formed the universe as it now is.
8. INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.

These should explain some of your questions.
As far as: "change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change".
Out of the council of His own free will - He chose to create that which exists, including time - according to His own good pleasure.

You state: "since "pre-exists" implies time, that God you suppose must either have experienced no time whatever (in which case, wherefore change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change), or -- the only other alternative -- that this timeless God appeared entirely simultaneously with its own creation, which must have included time."

You have presented, as an argument, a "False Dilemma" or a "False Dichotomy". A logical fallacy.

"A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions.

The Christian position, my position, is that God is eternal - not bound by time.
He created the universe by His word out of nothing, including time.
He imposed the absolute, universal, invariant, abstract, binding laws that govern nature, mathematics, morals, logic etc. which are reflections of His nature.

What you are asking is that God become self-contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Your assertion is illogical from the start. What you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You are being illogical to prove God doesn't exist, instead of using logic in a legitimate way. It doesn't work, and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

"Give me that explanation, and I'll provide you with mine (although -- I must in fairness tell you that I have already done so many times, universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful like "God is Great!")

I have done what you requested. And I promise to be fair. If you give a "meaningful" response I will regard it as such. Also, if I do, you can never again say "universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful".
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's telling that your are presenting an argument, in the form of a paradox, in an attempt to prove that belief in God is illogical. You know, like: "God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big that He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."

There are many characteristics attributed to the Christian God pertinent to our discussion:

1. SELF-EXISTENT: God has no cause; He does not depend on anything for his continued existence.
2. TRANSCENDENT: God is entirely distinct from the universe.
3. IMMANENT: Though transcendent, God is present with and in the world.
4. IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises.
5. ETERNAL: God is perfect in that He transcends all time and temporal limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to time.
6. INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit.
7. CREATOR: God is the One through whom all things have come into existence; by His unbounded power and knowledge He created finite existence ex nihilo and formed the universe as it now is.
8. INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.

These should explain some of your questions.
As far as: "change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change".
Out of the council of His own free will - He chose to create that which exists, including time - according to His own good pleasure.

You state: "since "pre-exists" implies time, that God you suppose must either have experienced no time whatever (in which case, wherefore change from just existing to creating, and how do you explain the "timing" of that change), or -- the only other alternative -- that this timeless God appeared entirely simultaneously with its own creation, which must have included time."

You have presented, as an argument, a "False Dilemma" or a "False Dichotomy". A logical fallacy.

"A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions.

The Christian position, my position, is that God is eternal - not bound by time.
He created the universe by His word out of nothing, including time.
He imposed the universal, invariant, abstract, binding laws that govern nature, mathematics, morals, logic etc. which are reflections of His nature.

What you are asking is that God become self-contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Your assertion is illogical from the start. What you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You are being illogical to prove God doesn't exist, instead of using logic. It doesn't work, and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

"Give me that explanation, and I'll provide you with mine (although -- I must in fairness tell you that I have already done so many times, universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful like "God is Great!")

I have done what you requested. And I promise to be fair. If you give a "meaningful" response I will regard it as such. Also, if I do, you can never again say "universally ignored by believers as not having said anything useful".
This is too large to answer all at once, but I will answer -- that I promise you.

Let me say first, however, that you make some really immense claims to "truths" for which you could not provide even the tiniest shred of evidence. Yet, without that, you insist that I must provide evidence why those claims are not to be taken as fully true at face value.

But here's a taste of how I will proceed: you made two statements in your post that I find directly and absolutely contradict one another -- and they are your claims, not mine:

"4. IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises."

"Out of the council of His own free will - He chose to create that which exists, including time - according to His own good pleasure."

While you may not be able to see it, there is a deep and insurmountable contradiction there. You might begin by doing a little work with the definitions of the words "change," "purpose" and "pleasure."
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
This is too large to answer all at once, but I will answer -- that I promise you.

Let me say first, however, that you make some really immense claims to "truths" for which you could not provide even the tiniest shred of evidence. Yet, without that, you insist that I must provide evidence why those claims are not to be taken as fully true at face value.

But here's a taste of how I will proceed: you made two statements in your post that I find directly and absolutely contradict one another -- and they are your claims, not mine:

"4. IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises."

"Out of the council of His own free will - He chose to create that which exists, including time - according to His own good pleasure."

While you may not be able to see it, there is a deep and insurmountable contradiction there. You might begin by doing a little work with the definitions of the words "change," "purpose" and "pleasure."

I would be happy to provide evidence from my final authority of truth. But you normally reject/disallow, out of hand, any reference that I provide from the Bible. You normally do this even though it is by way of your own use of your final standard of truth. But if you are now willing to allow me to provide that evidence, I will gladly do so.

You are correct. I don't see a "deep and insurmountable contradiction there". You will have to state your case more explicitly than just a mere assertion in order for me to know what, exactly, your objection is.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Well, you see, I see it quite differently. Theism, first and foremost, must do one thing I can't fathom at all -- in order to explain the simplest things about what you call "creation," theism must first posit that the most wondrous thing of all -- and all-powerful, omniscient, immaterial, timeless, intelligent, purposeful and creative thing must exist ------ without any explanation at all.

And of course, once you've allowed that impossible-to-explain precondition, well everything else is monstrously simple, isn't it?

Agreed, as Krauss said about Hawking's multiverses 'If your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'.

Creative intelligence however; is a proven phenomena Evan, there's no way around that.


Yet, while it is certainly true that science hasn't got all the answers -- and for all I know might never have all the answers, nor might their even necessarily BE an ultimate first answer -- science has managed to show over and over and over again how wondrous "creativity" is easily possible and explicable with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act.

Well that certainly was the classical model of reality 100 years ago, before quantum mechanics, DNA etc yes. We know better now, simple superficial observations of reality , do not account for themselves by a handful of simple 'immutable' laws, they are necessarily underwritten by a vast array of deeper, more complex, mysterious, even unpredictable forces- specifying, predetermining, precisely how these 'bits' act and exactly what the outcome will be. All this once considered 'pseudoscience' to classical Victorian naturalists of course. The simplest explanation is always the most tempting.


You don't know or understand this, of course, because science isn't your bag. But fortunately for the rest of us, it doesn't depend at all upon your understanding for its success.

For the record, you sound like a perfectly intelligent, well informed person to me, capable of critical thought. And I believe I was also when I held the exact same beliefs you do now.

Ad Hominem attacks only betray an emotional basis for our beliefs, fortunately for science, name calling doesn't hurt it one bit.:)
 
Last edited:
That's the kind of response when one is familiar with only one position and knows nothing of the other position, hinders any 'discussion'.
And THAT is the kind of response one gives when one is willing to make ignorant assumptions.

I reject 'theology' as valid precisely BECAUSE I have studied it for many, many years. Theology is only useful in that it gives us a subclassification for a certain type of mythology. The more diverse the linguistics the more diverse the thought.

It's one other useful function is to act as a constant reminder that mankind has a LONG way to go, and we are nowhere near as smart (collectively) as we think we are.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I reject 'theology' as valid precisely BECAUSE I have studied it for many, many years. Theology is only useful in that it gives us a subclassification for a certain type of mythology.

There are many schools of theology. Some are little more than apologetics with one purpose, to defend the faith. Others, those who ask the tough questions, are often accused of being heretical.

It's one other useful function is to act as a constant reminder that mankind has a LONG way to go, and we are nowhere near as smart (collectively) as we think we are.

True
 
Top