| Science - What it can explain and what it cant explain. Science is in the business of answering questions about the universe - what we call the natural world. But though science can inform of us of many things, there is one thing it will never be able to inform us of: That God does not exist or does not need to exist. Yet this is the very thing some people try to do. When someone makes this claim, they have made a major logical error that we should point out to them. Youll notice that I said the problem with this thinking is a logical error, not a scientific one. There are many good scientific reasons for believing God made this universe, but that is another issue. The logical problem with atheistic science is much simpler to demonstrate and more fundamental to the question of Gods existence. Once you understand this, you will no longer be intimidated by people who claim belief in God is unscientific, you will simply pity them for being so nave. As I stated earlier, science is in the business of answering questions about the universe. But before a scientist can investigate the world around him, he must start with the assumption that everything in the natural world has a purpose; that everything was intended to relate to other objects in uniform ways and that our perceptions were intended to portray the world around us as it really is. Furthermore, it is assumed that our thinking - logic, reason, deduction, induction, etc. were all meant to help us discover and explain the world around us. Without assuming these things, he cant begin doing any science at all. Now you are probably quite used to making these assumptions yourself, so you may not see how it relates to Gods existence. But it absolutely does. For the only valid reason for making these assumptions, is if everything was created by God. Without there being such a God to create purpose, relationship, uniformity, etc. into the universe, there is no justification for believing these things exist. There is no valid reason to believe that the world around us exists at all! It may take a little time for this point to sink in. We are all so used to making these assumptions that we rarely ask ourselves why? But if we existed in a universe of purposelessness, there is no justification for us to assume that order, meaning, uniformity, intention, identity, etc. exists. How could they? For these are all properties of a planned universe not one of chance or chaos. And there is no way to get a planned, universe without a divine planner. Maybe some of you are familiar with computer macros where the program goes through a series of steps very quickly. If you have an error in the sequence, you can choose to have the program slow down the steps so you can identify the faulty step. Lets do the same thing here slow down the thought process so we can identify this faulty step Ive been talking about. Thinking like an atheist, it starts like this: Step 1. You see a chair in front of you. Step 2. You recognize that you have a perception of a chair in front of you. (You are justified in concluding that you have the perception of a chair in front of you because its a real perception). Step 3. You assume that there is a chair in front of you. ERROR! There is no reason to conclude your eyes are perceiving an actual chair, unless you know that your eyes were intended to relate to the world around you; Unless you know that this experience is uniform that you can count on it happening every time you perceive something and that your mind will identify the objects you perceive as similar or different from objects it has perceived in the past. In an unplanned universe, it is illogical to assume that these things exist. In an unplanned universe, there isnt even justification for logic itself. If you are an atheist, you cant get past step 2. I could go list other details on this but the atheistic scientist has made the logical error even easier to identify. For they say that true science is limited to things we can physically perceive, yet none of these assumptions the ones they base all their science on, can be physically perceived. In a sentence, these assumptions cannot be proven by any information you can gather through your senses, so they are clearly non-scientific beliefs. A lot of people have pointed this out in the past but since most scientists used to believe in God, they had no problem in admitting that they started with a super-natural or meta-physical assumption. If they didnt start with this assumption (or presupposition as it is more correctly called), they couldnt even assume that there was an external world around us, let alone study it. What many people are trying to do today is, start with these same presuppositions - that can not be perceived with our senses, use it to study the world around us and then, conclude that the only things we can know are the things we can perceive with our senses. Do you see the problem? A fancy name for this kind of contradiction is a self- stultifying argument or a self-refuting argument. This is the logical error of atheistic science: Saying that science only accepts things that can be physically perceived when it bases all of its efforts on a monumental assumption that cant be physically perceived. The funny thing about this is, every time they practice science, they are acknowledging Gods existence. So the next time you hear someone say science doesnt need God to explain things, you have a couple choices. One is to smile and pity them for being so nave. Or you may want to ask them to clarify their comment. Do you mean that we have another explanation for the assumptions science relies on - You know, assumptions like why we believe science can be done in the first place? They may change the subject but they wont be able to answer the question without referring to properties of a God created universe. Just keep reminding them of their error. |