Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

[atanu]

I want to turn the question around.

Religions, as far as I understand, teach that the awareness is unborn. If this is the case, our intellect's core is the primordial unborn awareness and that gives us power of objective discernment and free will, once we disassociate the self from temporary forms which mind tends to associate self with.

Some scientists, and most scientists of our time, seem to believe that consciousness is derived of blind process. If this is truly true, what is he probability that one has objective power of discernment? What is the probability that the very data on which a scientist is surmising is true?

 

[Politesse]

I want to turn the question around.

Religions, as far as I understand, teach that the awareness is unborn. If this is the case, our intellect's core is the primordial unborn awareness and that gives us power of objective discernment and free will, once we disassociate the self from temporary forms which mind tends to associate self with.

Some scientists, and most scientists of our time, seem to believe that consciousness is derived of blind process. If this is truly true, what is he probability that one has objective power of discernment? What is the probability that he very data on which a scientist is surmising is true?

One doesn't - that's why the sciences treat all subjective perception as flawed, and insist on objective confirmation through experimentation, replication, and independent observation. That is the entire reason for the existence of science, to act as a check against our inherent subjective bias in the confirmation of empirical hypotheses.

 

[atanu]

One doesn't - that's why the sciences treat all subjective perception as flawed, and insist on objective confirmation through experimentation, replication, and independent observation. That is the entire reason for the existence of science, to act as a check against our inherent subjective bias in the confirmation of empirical hypotheses.

Thank you. But I am not able to follow your post in context of what I asked.

My point is this.

If one works with a hypothesis that the discrete measurable objects of waking consciousness are the only truths and that intelligence of human beings are derived from special interaction or structure of such inert objects, then how free is that intelligence?

In words of a great philosopher (I am not naming the person, because I have seen great insults heaped upon questioners).

Given materialist naturalism, the probability that my cognitive faculties are reliable with respect to metaphysical beliefs would be low. So take any metaphysical belief I have: the probability that it is true, given materialist naturalism, cannot be much above .5. But of course materialist naturalism is itself a metaphysical belief. So the materialistic naturalist should think the probability of materialist naturalism is about .5. But that means that she cannot sensibly believe her own doctrine. If she believes it, she shouldn’t believe it. In this way materialist naturalism is self-defeating.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Many have shown evidence of a worldwide flood. At the least, and to be honest, it should be said that there is not enough evidence for science to conclude that the specific flood described in the bible happened as described.

I once has an exhaustive list of everything that is wrong with the "Flood" story; but alas, I have lost that list, so I will try to bring up some of the points that make the "flood" story impossible:

- Mathematical calculations of reproduction rates exceed the reality of repopulating the earth from "two of every kind" in such a short time frame;
- With all but 2 of each kind of herbivores left, upon exiting the ark, the carnivores would have either gone extinct or caused the herbivores to go extinct;
- There isn't and never was enough water on the earth for a woldwide flood of that magnitude, and if there ever was, it is explainable where it went afterwards;
- Population distribution of creatures from a central point in the Middle East does not fit current evidence;
- There is a limit to how big a wooden ship can be and remain intact, and the Ark far exceeds those dimensions;
- Changing the salinity and temperature of the waters would have caused mass extinction of most aquatic life;
- There would have been a mass extinction of plant life, which could not survive being submerged in total darkness for such an elongated period of time;

The list goes on.
And on.
And on.

A flood of Noah's proportions is simply impossible.

 

[Politesse]

Thank you. But I am not able to follow your post in context of what I asked.

My point is this.

If one works with a hypothesis that the discrete measurable objects of waking consciousness are the only truths and that intelligence of human beings are derived from special interaction or structure of such inert objects, then how free is that intelligence?

In words of a great philosopher (I am not naming the person, because I have seen great insults heaped upon questioners).

Given materialist naturalism, the probability that my cognitive faculties are reliable with respect to metaphysical beliefs would be low. So take any metaphysical belief I have: the probability that it is true, given materialist naturalism, cannot be much above .5. But of course materialist naturalism is itself a metaphysical belief. So the materialistic naturalist should think the probability of materialist naturalism is about .5. But that means that she cannot sensibly believe her own doctrine. If she believes it, she shouldn’t believe it. In this way materialist naturalism is self-defeating.

We were discussing science, though, not materialist naturalism. Science is a methodology, which works whether or not one believes it is the only way to truth. No one would ever need to adopt your hypothesis to use science. Anyone can use science, that's the whole point. You can believe that God loves you, or that many gods love each other, or that the soul is immortal, or that the soul is an illusion. When you put a flask of water on a Bunsen burner, it will nevertheless boil at exactly 100 degrees Centigrade, without bothering to ask you if you believe in materialism first. Indeed, if a hypothesis only works for people of a certain philosophy, science cannot confirm it; it only confirms that which has been objectively demonstrated to be replicable whenever the same conditions are met. Perception is irrelevant, so no objective perception is needed. Which is good, since most scientists would passionately agree that the mind is not capable of any such feat.

 

[Etritonakin]

I once has an exhaustive list of everything that is wrong with the "Flood" story; but alas, I have lost that list, so I will try to bring up some of the points that make the "flood" story impossible:

- Mathematical calculations of reproduction rates exceed the reality of repopulating the earth from "two of every kind" in such a short time frame;
- With all but 2 of each kind of herbivores left, upon exiting the ark, the carnivores would have either gone extinct or caused the herbivores to go extinct;
- There isn't and never was enough water on the earth for a woldwide flood of that magnitude, and if there ever was, it is explainable where it went afterwards;
- Population distribution of creatures from a central point in the Middle East does not fit current evidence;
- There is a limit to how big a wooden ship can be and remain intact, and the Ark far exceeds those dimensions;
- Changing the salinity and temperature of the waters would have caused mass extinction of most aquatic life;
- There would have been a mass extinction of plant life, which could not survive being submerged in total darkness for such an elongated period of time;

The list goes on.
And on.
And on.

A flood of Noah's proportions is simply impossible.

Again -those things assume much about what is stated and does not consider what is not stated.

But... Using science based only on knowns to prove or disprove the supernatural (one with extreme power over the natural) really can't work, anyway.

If you whittle it down, the thing "wrong" with the flood story is God.

No God = no Noah's flood.

One point I have not yet heard is... Literally "every" animal was not even in Noah's vicinity -but is that really the intended meaning? Were they really trying to say every animal all over the world first made the journey to the ark by land, sea or air?

Some have said that there is enough water when underground sources are included -but which of us can go check into that?

A global flood would not have killed every sort of life form, perhaps not all concerning the flood and God's actions was included in the account, it is not specified that all present animals were descended from those, etc., etc.
The target was man,mas animals really don't have the capacity to understand sin -so a God who can act by fiat could quite easily cause life tomflourishnwjerever he wanted.

So.... Basically, if you don't believe in a God who can stop the sun in the sky (rotation of the earth) for an hour at the request of a man without all sorts of other weird things happening...

...there is really no point trying to prove or disprove the flood specified in the bible.

Knowing there would be a flood and building the ark -trying to round up a bunch of life forms -not only by twos, but the clean animals 7x7, rain everywhere as water also rose from beneath the earth.....

There is nothing really "natural" about it.

I wasn't there, so I can't "know" scientifically, but I have seen enough in my own experience to know that the "super"natural is very real -and there isn't any point trying to convince anyone.

We can believe and even know things are possible, but experience makes it "true" to us personally.

However.... You telling me it is not possible is like a fish telling another fish it is impossible to build a dam. It is only impossible to the fish.
A being with a more capable, direct and powerful interface than that of man is not impossible.

 

[atanu]

We were discussing science, though, not materialist naturalism. Science is a methodology, which works whether or not one believes it is the only way to truth. No one would ever need to adopt your hypothesis to use science. Anyone can use science, that's the whole point. You can believe that God loves you, or that many gods love each other, or that the soul is immortal, or that the soul is an illusion. When you put a flask of water on a Bunsen burner, it will nevertheless boil at exactly 100 degrees Centigrade, without bothering to ask you if you believe in materialism first. Indeed, if a hypothesis only works for people of a certain philosophy, science cannot confirm it; it only confirms that which has been objectively demonstrated to be replicable whenever the same conditions are met. Perception is irrelevant, so no objective perception is needed. Which is good, since most scientists would passionately agree that the mind is not capable of any such feat.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you fully regarding science.

Nevertheless, although, I did not specify philosophical materialism in the earlier post, I constrained my enquiry with

“Some scientists, and most scientists of our time, seem to believe that consciousness is derived of blind process. ...”.

You see I was actually not talking of science. I however did not use the term philosophical materialism explicitly.
...

 

[osgart]

science needs the material world to function. Anything immaterial would not be discernable to science.

Let me know of the day when science can probe actual thoughts, or cares, and then we will find spiritual methodology added to the list of sciences abilities.

until that day science has no rights on spiritual matters.

on religious myth, that's all too easy to refute.

science is limited to physicality. Non locality is as close as they have come to the existence of the immaterial.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If you whittle it down, the thing "wrong" with the flood story is God.

No God = no Noah's flood.

I have given you a cursory list of issues where science can not demonstrate a world wide flood, with or without God. You may hang on to your delusion that I, and other thinking human beings, refuse to believe in such a tale because it includes "God" -- if you wish -- but what truly remains is that, with or without the inclusion or exclusion of God, a world wide flood simply does not fit with evidence.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have given you a cursory list of issues where science can not demonstrate a world wide flood, with or without God. You may hang on to your delusion that I, and other thinking human beings, refuse to believe in such a tale because it includes "God" -- if you wish -- but what truly remains is that, with or without the inclusion or exclusion of God, a world wide flood simply does not fit with evidence.

You sure you read what I wrote?

 

[Etritonakin]

I have given you a cursory list of issues where science can not demonstrate a world wide flood, with or without God. You may hang on to your delusion that I, and other thinking human beings, refuse to believe in such a tale because it includes "God" -- if you wish -- but what truly remains is that, with or without the inclusion or exclusion of God, a world wide flood simply does not fit with evidence.

Anyway... Science does not have all evidence to make a final conclusion that a worldwide flood of any description did not happen (and I just read where "scientists" believe early earth was covered with water, so at least they think there is enough water), certainly does not know all of the secrets of the universe and beyond, and can only say what is likely or possible based on its limited knowledge and evidence. "Scientists" often believe many things which are contradictory and some which are later proved to be incorrect. Happens all the time. We cannot even guess at what percentage of the knowable is already known.

That is true even if God is not considered.

If a God who applied the logic to that which existed before the Big Bang in order to bring about the "laws" which we call physical is considered -who is able to suspend such laws as easily as he caused them to exist, then you certainly can't say a flood was impossible even considering God.
As the physical universe once did not exist, it's specific laws once did not apply.
Something was applied to that which existed previously in order for those laws to exist -in order for the elements and the physical universe to exist, and for the present specific physical laws to apply -so there is obviously at least something which is not subject to those specific laws.
If a consciousness existed or developed prior to the Big Bang, it would also not be subject to those specific laws and would exist at a level which would allow for creation and manipulation of such laws.

The flood described was SUPERnatural -and the other events definitely so. Obviously it could not have happened considering only natural laws.
As for "the evidence" for or against any sort of worldwide flood or specifically not many thousands of years ago, some say there is evidence, some say there is not -and people generally believe what they want to believe, anyway -as they sit in their rooms, never having done any of the work themselves.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Anyway... Science does not have all evidence to make a final conclusion that a worldwide flood of any description did not happen (and I just read where "scientists" believe early earth was covered with water, so at least they think there is enough water), certainly does not know all of the secrets of the universe and beyond, and can only say what is likely or possible based on its limited knowledge and evidence.

I have given you a cursory list of why science holds, rightfully so, that there was no biblical flood.

You did not read the report of the Australian scientists who believe the Earth was once covered in water.

Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News

However, unlike in the movie [Waterworld], the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved. Back then life consisted of nothing more complex than algae and bacteria.

However, unlike in the movie, the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved. Back then life consisted of nothing more complex than algae and bacteria. [That's a far cry from a few thousand years ago]

The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods. New Scientist magazine reported: “As the mantle cooled, land would have gradually appeared as the oceans became deeper and regions of high relief on the continental crust formed.” The transition may help explain why oxygen levels in the atmosphere rose at this time in the Earth’s history, say the researchers led by Dr Nicolas Flament from the University of Sydney.

Read more: Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News

Science does not indicate that there is, or ever was, enough water on the globe to have covered Pike's Peak; let alone Mount Everest; and the scientists even state that 2-3% of the earth's crust would have been dry (which is not consistent with the fable of Noah).

"Scientists" often believe many things which are contradictory and some which are later proved to be incorrect. Happens all the time. We cannot even guess at what percentage of the knowable is already known.

That's how science works. Conclusions are based on observable evidence. When new observable evidence presents itself that contradicts former belief (i.e. Cosmic Background Radiation, which obliterated the "static universe" model because of new observable evidence). If you believe that the earth was once covered in water a few thousand years ago, find the evidence (not a tale) that shows it to b true. Should you be able to do so, you'd be a household name.

Good luck!

If a God who applied the logic to that which existed before the Big Bang in order to bring about the "laws" which we call physical is considered -who is able to suspend such laws as easily as he caused them to exist, then you certainly can't say a flood was impossible even considering God.

Typical theist cop out; implore God and Magic. That does not change the fact that the evidence of science contradicts a world wide flood.

As the physical universe once did not exist, it's specific laws once did not apply.

Ah! Quite fascinating to consider that the laws in other universes (should other universes exist) are different than the laws in our present universe! Wonderful!

However, to apply this to noah's flood of the sun and moon standing still in the sky; this fails, because there is no observable fact or evidence to ever suggest that the laws of our universe have ever deviated.

Something was applied to that which existed previously in order for those laws to exist -in order for the elements and the physical universe to exist, and for the present specific physical laws to apply -so there is obviously at least something which is not subject to those specific laws.

"What happened before the Big Bang" is a tantalizing (and serious) study of current scientists. I encourage you look into this. Science is now contemplating what "could have been" before the "Big Bang"; and are coming up with some pretty cool ideas. However, all the ideas are consisent in the idea that "some kind" of law or laws applied and were "subject" to the laws of that universe. Once our universe came into existence, however, the physical laws that are in place, were put into place at its beginning. So yes, hypothetically ... maybe even theoretically ... there is existence where the physical laws of our universe simply do not apply there. But there is no evidence to indicate that these different "universes", should they exist, with their different hypothetical laws, ever interact. So again, your rebuttal lacks any observable fact or evidence to support it.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have given you a cursory list of why science holds, rightfully so, that there was no biblical flood.

You did not read the report of the Australian scientists who believe the Earth was once covered in water.

Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News

However, unlike in the movie [Waterworld], the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved. Back then life consisted of nothing more complex than algae and bacteria.

However, unlike in the movie, the oceans 2.5 billion years ago would have been devoid of fish, which had not yet evolved. Back then life consisted of nothing more complex than algae and bacteria. [That's a far cry from a few thousand years ago]

The Australian scientists who produced the new computer simulation believe that billions of years ago the Earth’s deep mantle was 200C hotter than it is today. A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods. New Scientist magazine reported: “As the mantle cooled, land would have gradually appeared as the oceans became deeper and regions of high relief on the continental crust formed.” The transition may help explain why oxygen levels in the atmosphere rose at this time in the Earth’s history, say the researchers led by Dr Nicolas Flament from the University of Sydney.

Read more: Early Earth 'was covered in water' | Metro News

Science does not indicate that there is, or ever was, enough water on the globe to have covered Pike's Peak; let alone Mount Everest; and the scientists even state that 2-3% of the earth's crust would have been dry (which is not consistent with the fable of Noah).



That's how science works. Conclusions are based on observable evidence. When new observable evidence presents itself that contradicts former belief (i.e. Cosmic Background Radiation, which obliterated the "static universe" model because of new observable evidence). If you believe that the earth was once covered in water a few thousand years ago, find the evidence (not a tale) that shows it to b true. Should you be able to do so, you'd be a household name.

Good luck!



Typical theist cop out; implore God and Magic. That does not change the fact that the evidence of science contradicts a world wide flood.



Ah! Quite fascinating to consider that the laws in other universes (should other universes exist) are different than the laws in our present universe! Wonderful!

However, to apply this to noah's flood of the sun and moon standing still in the sky; this fails, because there is no observable fact or evidence to ever suggest that the laws of our universe have ever deviated.



"What happened before the Big Bang" is a tantalizing (and serious) study of current scientists. I encourage you look into this. Science is now contemplating what "could have been" before the "Big Bang"; and are coming up with some pretty cool ideas. However, all the ideas are consisent in the idea that "some kind" of law or laws applied and were "subject" to the laws of that universe. Once our universe came into existence, however, the physical laws that are in place, were put into place at its beginning. So yes, hypothetically ... maybe even theoretically ... there is existence where the physical laws of our universe simply do not apply there. But there is no evidence to indicate that these different "universes", should they exist, with their different hypothetical laws, ever interact. So again, your rebuttal lacks any observable fact or evidence to support it.

I did not say what you seem to think I said. You are making many assumptions rather than simply reading what I wrote. The things you are saying do not actually apply to what I wrote.
Perhaps you do not have much time and are skimming it?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I did not say what you seem to think I said. You are making many assumptions rather than simply reading what I wrote. The things you are saying do not actually apply to what I wrote.
Perhaps you do not have much time and are skimming it?

I have read (and read) what you have written, and this is what I'm seeing you saying:

1. That there was a worldwide flood;
2. That there is evidence for a worldwide flood;
3. That there is scientific evidence for a worldwide flood;
4. That the evidence contradicting a worldwide flood doesn't change your belief because science doesn't know anything (er ... everything);
5. That physical laws don't apply because God.

If this is what you are saying, then my comments apply.

If this is not what you are saying, then I am utterly confused about what you are saying.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have read (and read) what you have written, and this is what I'm seeing you saying:

1. That there was a worldwide flood;
2. That there is evidence for a worldwide flood;
3. That there is scientific evidence for a worldwide flood;
4. That the evidence contradicting a worldwide flood doesn't change your belief because science doesn't know anything (er ... everything);
5. That physical laws don't apply because God.

If this is what you are saying, then my comments apply.

If this is not what you are saying, then I am utterly confused about what you are saying.

1. No. I, personally, have no experience or evidence of a worldwide flood. I did not see it or get wet by it -and I have not been digging around to check out the claim.
4. No. However.... The pervasiveness of the great flood theme in many cultures is some sort of evidence of something -whether that something is an actual flood at some time or the tendency of humans to write a story about disaster -or a some mix of those and other things.
3. No. Some "scientists" say there is no evidence of "A" worldwide flood (as in just the whole earth being flooded at the same time) -some say there is -both likely have some personal bias, even if they do not let it affect what they believe is likely to have or not have happened -which is itself based on incomplete evidence, regardless of who is correct or not.
4. I only have belief in the possibility of a worldwide flood. It is not extremely important to me -even though I have faith (more than blind belief) in the God of the bible.
"Science" ought not accept any conclusion until there is complete evidence -otherwise it ought to say that the available evidence does not suggest this or that. However.... Certain aspects of a worldwide flood can be said to be true or false as long as certain other things are true or false.
5. Yes and no. PRESENT "physical" laws have not always applied -though the most basic law upon which they are based has "always" applied. For example, the laws governing interaction of the elements did not exist before the elements -but the most basic laws which allowed the elements to be formed would have "always" been in effect.
The God described in the bible existed prior to the formation of the elements, and is responsible for their formation.
He is therefore not subject to present physical law -but the most basic law is essentially his own nature -as he is essentially "everything" aware of itself.
Our present limitations are actually due to the fact that we ARE subject to present physical law -because we are composed of the elements, and interact with external things which are composed of the elements. God would not be limited in this way -but even we are becoming less limited -less subject -by increasing our knowledge and changing how we interface (with external tools, etc.). It could even be said that humans have accidentally caused worldwide flooding -if SOME scientists are correct about global warming -whereas once we were not able.
So -there is both what is possible and of what a being is capable to consider -and the capability of a being is based on its nature.
Life forms on earth vary in capability -but are limited by their nature. SUPERnatural things are impossible to them alone -but that is not to say supernatural things are impossible.
A being "composed" of that which has always existed and preceded the formation of the universe would interface on that level -which is, by definition, SUPERnatural from our perspective.
More correctly, that being would be of a pre-universe nature -which is possible because there was some sort of stuff and some sort of law.
Such a being -capable of forming the elements by applying logic and forces on that level -would also be capable of manipulating, suspending or altering the "physical" laws of the universe.

"Science" cannot simply accept the existence of God or the capability of manipulating, suspending or altering the physical laws of the universe. It, overall, has no evidence of such. It must consider only the possibility of A worldwide flood based on that for which it does have evidence -which is physical law.
Then, it can only consider the incomplete evidence available.

Science cannot (at least yet) address the supernatural aspects of THE flood described in the bible -only the natural aspects -and it must consider what is actually stated and what is not actually stated.
It cannot accept or hope to prove that God told Noah to build an ark or collect animals. It cannot accept that natural weather patterns -or anything else -could be altered by the decision of God.

It can consider whether or not the whole earth was covered with water.
It can consider what would result from rain falling everywhere and water rising everywhere simultaneously -accounting for variations in rain intensity, rate of rise, etc.
It can consider whether or not some animals (perhaps they collected only every "available" animal) may have been collected on an ark and moved not a great distance.
It can consider whether or not a global flood would have killed this or that life form not on an ark.
It can consider how life forms could naturally have evolved, moved or repopulated.
It can consider the natural results of the natural things described in the bible -but it cannot assume that the account is complete even if true -and it cannot consider a God able to act by fiat.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I see.

I find your assertions of "complete evidence" as in-congruent with how science works. We have no "absolute" or "complete" evidence of the Law of Gravity; we don't even know what gravity is! But what we DO know is that the evidence supporting the existence of Gravity and the Law of Gravity is so overwhelming, that the only rational conclusion to reach is that there is something called "gravity" that causes mass to attract mass. The same for the world wide flood; there can be no "absolute" or "complete" evidence against such an event; but the evidence against such an event is so overwhelming, the only rational conclusion is to conclude that there was no world wide flood. Both of these "rational" conclusions can (and would) be altered in the light of new evidence and new observable facts.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

For example, the laws governing interaction of the elements did not exist before the elements -but the most basic laws which allowed the elements to be formed would have "always" been in effect.

There is something I find disagreeable with this logic, but is difficult for me to put into words.

I can't quite wrap my head around "why" the "laws governing interaction of the elements" could not have existed prior to the elements themselves. Perhaps when I am rested, I can organize and express my impressions/thoughts on this more coherently when I am rested (which tonight I am not).

 

[Etritonakin]

There is something I find disagreeable with this logic, but is difficult for me to put into words.

I can't quite wrap my head around "why" the "laws governing interaction of the elements" could not have existed prior to the elements themselves. Perhaps when I am rested, I can organize and express my impressions/thoughts on this more coherently when I am rested (which tonight I am not).

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In other words..... things which are seen are made of things which do not appear.

In still other words.... new things can only be made from old/eternal things.

The MOST BASIC laws governing the interaction of the elements -and every other thing possible -have always existed.

However, the SPECIFIC laws governing the interaction of the elements DID NOT APPLY before logic and forces WERE APPLIED to the pre-elemental "stuff" which resulted in the formation of the elements.

On our level..... when we arrange that which exists into new configurations, we create new laws based on preexisting laws.

If it is true that the things which now exist have always existed -but are now in a different configuration -then we may hope to understand that which was (and is) before us (and I find it more than strange that "before us" can mean both preexisting and post-existing -behind us and right in front of us)

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Our rift is this:

There is something I find disagreeable with this logic, but is difficult for me to put into words.

I can't quite wrap my head around "why" the "laws governing interaction of the elements" could not have existed prior to the elements themselves. Perhaps when I am rested, I can organize and express my impressions/thoughts on this more coherently when I am rested (which tonight I am not).

What we perceive as "laws" and "logic" are all descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe simply how things work (in the matter of natural laws) and what best works to decipher the complexities and simplicities of our world (logic). As a result, no one and no thing needs to prescribe laws of nature or laws of motion or laws of logic or etc. Because our physical laws that govern our universe merely describe the way that things work, then these laws were in effect before the elements. The elements did not appear then some governing force contemplated, "Hmm. Something new here. Well, we need rules to govern these things. Lemme think ... "

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In other words..... things which are seen are made of things which do not appear.

In still other words.... new things can only be made from old/eternal things.

These are presuppositions which may or may not be true; and scriptures are not scientific texts so they do nothing to strengthen your assertions except in the minds of those who already hold to such supernatural beliefs.

So, back to the initial question to this thread of which I have not yet made a stand on that question:

Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

Probably not; as science is about observation of the physical world; not the supernatural. Science has no way to determine the existence nor nonexistence of a deity; let alone which deity is true.

It can, however, decipher what religious beliefs are false (or maybe true) based upon physical evidence; so while science can't determine if Yawed exists, it can certainly determine that events such as the Exodus, the World Wide Flood, the Sun and Moon standing still, and a plethora of other myths from other religions certainly did not occur and are thus utterly false.

 

[Randy the Atheist]

Can the sciences legitimately tell us whether the notion that there was once a great flood covering all the earth is true or false? Why or why not?​

The last global mass extinction of life on Earth occurred 65 million years ago.

There have been no major mass extinctions of that scale since then.

Noah's flood was a local flood.