There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[tumbleweed41]

Or it could be that God knows all the answers because he created the earth.

And how would one verify that God has all the answers?

I know your answer. The Bible.

Unfortunately, the Bible is not a science book. As evidenced by the many unscientific assertions.

But if you want to use it as a tool to better understand your God, that makes more sense than attempting to is it as a tool of science.

Personally, I find that understanding more about the natural workings of our universe brings me closer to an admittedly limited understanding of God.

 

[Me Myself]

Why do you think that?

I am just throwing an unfounded hypothesis just like you did.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hmm. "Your explanation has gaps in it - so my explanation must be correct!" No flaws there, in your opinion?

Well, "Science" means to know and be able to explain exactly how something is done. If it cannot explain completely, I don't think it can claim, that it doesn't require God. It would be correct to say, we don't know if God did it or not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, "Science" means to know and be able to explain exactly how something is done.

No, it does not.

Science finds answers and exposes more questions.

Think of it this way.
A child knows little, and has many questions. As you answer each question, the child learns more and has more questions based on your answers.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I am just throwing an unfounded hypothesis just like you did.

Not really, there's evidence for things about the earth, which are based off what the bible says. On the other hand there's NO REASON to believe unicorns created the earth.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Unfortunately, the Bible is not a science book. As evidenced by the many unscientific assertions.

Define science? The bible doens't make any unscientific claims. However there are scientists who make wrong assertions.

But if you want to use it as a tool to better understand your God, that makes more sense than attempting to is it as a tool of science.

Yep the bible can be used for that too.

Personally, I find that understanding more about the natural workings of our universe brings me closer to an admittedly limited understanding of God.

I agree

 

[idav]

But Science has not been able to fully explain how the world came to how it is right now. How could it be said that God is not necessary for the world, when science has been only providing some explaination upto a certain point? Infact, not only this, but also the science cannot fully understand the most insignificant of creatures.

Science hasn't fully explained everything but they have been explaining enough to satisfy many curiosities. Up to a certain point, sure, we can only explain as much as factual knowledge will allow. What I see with many theists is that the only place left for god is prior to the big bang since it is an unknown for science so there are many theists who stick to that.

 

[idav]

It would be correct to say, we don't know if God did it or not.

Yes but we don't even know if God is a necessity or even possible. We don't know what did it is a more accurate statement. Throwing god in there makes it a loaded question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Define science? The bible doens't make any unscientific claims.

In fact, the bible makes no scientific claims.

 

[Vadergirl123]

In fact, the bible makes no scientific claims.

Define scientific claim? Do you not consider the verse. "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth." a scientific claim?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Define scientific claim? Do you not consider the verse. "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth." a scientific claim?

I don't.

Do you?

 

[cablescavenger]

There is no contradiction in Religion and Science; as both are modes of human virtual travel into the unseen realm in a sense; the later in the physical and secular realm only while the earlier goes deep in the meaning, purpose, characteristics, attributes, morals and spiritual. They are complementary not contradictory. One is the Word of the Creator God while the other is Work of Him. Both created by Him. If we fall short of at times understanding the Work of God, the same way we may misunderstand the other; the fault is always on our side as to err is human, and to shift it on the side of Creator God would be naturally unjustified.

What is the remedy to this scenario? Just to improve our understanding with the available appropriate tools in the relative realm. With more experiments and experiences we could improve and photo-finish our understanding.

Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Human error could play havoc with the Word also. A priest/monk, the fake one of course, may not and must not be able to understand the Word correctly so it would not and must not match with the Scientific Laws, resulting into an apparent ambiguity, which is not there in reality, it is our own personal or collective illusion for the most part.

This is what I think. Your opinions/comments are welcome.

Oh brother

 

[Vadergirl123]

I don't.

Do you?

You didn't define a scientific claim?

 

[mycorrhiza]

You didn't define a scientific claim?

Something that is scientifically sound and can be proven by scientific method?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You didn't define a scientific claim?

Something that is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable.

Which is why it would be silly to consider "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth." as a scientific claim.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not really, there's evidence for things about the earth, which are based off what the bible says. On the other hand there's NO REASON to believe unicorns created the earth.

That was the Bible writers making observations about the Earth, not vice versa.

 

[paarsurrey]

Something that is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable.

Which is why it would be silly to consider "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth." as a scientific claim.

It is neither science nor religion; it is just an obscure statement by some anonymous person.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, "Science" means to know and be able to explain exactly how something is done. If it cannot explain completely, I don't think it can claim, that it doesn't require God. It would be correct to say, we don't know if God did it or not.

To say it requires God is to say it must have been God who did it. If there is a possible explanation that doesn't involve God, even if that has not or can not be definitively proven to be the correct one, God is no longer a requirement. That isn't saying God certainly wasn't involved, only that it isn't shown that he certainly was.

 

[cablescavenger]

There is no contradiction in Religion and Science; as both are modes of human virtual travel into the unseen realm in a sense; the later in the physical and secular realm only while the earlier goes deep in the meaning, purpose, characteristics, attributes, morals and spiritual. They are complementary not contradictory. One is the Word of the Creator God while the other is Work of Him. Both created by Him. If we fall short of at times understanding the Work of God, the same way we may misunderstand the other; the fault is always on our side as to err is human, and to shift it on the side of Creator God would be naturally unjustified.

What is the remedy to this scenario? Just to improve our understanding with the available appropriate tools in the relative realm. With more experiments and experiences we could improve and photo-finish our understanding.

Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Human error could play havoc with the Word also. A priest/monk, the fake one of course, may not and must not be able to understand the Word correctly so it would not and must not match with the Scientific Laws, resulting into an apparent ambiguity, which is not there in reality, it is our own personal or collective illusion for the most part.

This is what I think. Your opinions/comments are welcome.

There is plenty of contradiction in your statement though.

If you say Religion deals with spirituality and Science the real you can't really go on to say God created the real because you are overstepping the mark, as well as overstepping your evidence.

If we go down that route of confusing the two, religion doesn't have a leg to stand on, so you would be better served keeping it in the spiritual realm and not claiming supernatural creations.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is plenty of contradiction in your statement though.

If you say Religion deals with spirituality and Science the real you can't really go on to say God created the real because you are overstepping the mark, as well as overstepping your evidence.

If we go down that route of confusing the two, religion doesn't have a leg to stand on, so you would be better served keeping it in the spiritual realm and not claiming supernatural creations.

I did not say that only science deals in reality; science deals in reality of the things physical; it fails beyond it.

It is the subject of religion to deal in realities of spiritual and beyond.

There is no contradiction; I think you got me wrong.