When two ideas seem to contradict each other, we call it an oxymoron. Drawing a clear understanding of what an oxymoron is can be achieved by simply looking at the word ‘oxymoron’; oxymoron is an oxymoron.

Oxymoron is actually two words put together in the same way as compound words like jellyfish, fingernail, jigsaw, toothbrush, etc. In this case, both words are Greek. Οχυσ (Oxus) literally means ‘sharp’ or ‘swift’. Early Greeks used this word to describe the sword of Christ in Revelation 1 & 19. But, οχυσ also carries the imagery of a sharp, quick thinking individual—one who is smart. μωρός (Mōrus), on the other hand, is where we get our modern word, moron; it means fool/foolish. Thus we have a clear oxymoron: oxus moros, smart fool.

dictionary oxymoron science atheistmWelcome to scientific atheism. Science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”[i] In contrast, atheism is a, “disbelief[ii] or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”.[iii] As atheism is considered a system of disbelief pertaining to spiritual entities, it draws an οχυσ (sharp) contrast to scientific physical necessity. In very straight forward terms, scientific atheism is like saying physical-study, spiritual-disbelief; a clear oxymoron on multiple fronts. Just as physical and spiritual are opposite, study and disbelief also find themselves in opposition.

I think recognizing the polar differences between physical and spiritual are straight forward (mass/mass-less, observable/non-observable, has weight, is weight-less, etc.) Study and disbelief may not be as clear, but these terms are more conflicting than the latter two. Study is an active process; it is an intent to learn, investigate, and explore. To study is to give credence to the topic and then draw a conclusion based on the results. Studying concludes in belief–always. Whether that belief affirms that a proposition (i.e. God exists) is true or affirms that the proposition is false (i.e. God does not exist) is indifferent. Studying a topic leads you to either believe it’s true or believe it’s false; it will never lead you to disbelief in the topic. The only way to arrive at disbelief is to reject the topic exists and therefore refuse to study. Some might say I have a disbelief in unicorns or leprechauns or flying spaghetti monsters. That’s fine, I’m not saying everything requires a belief. I am saying, you do not arrive at disbelief by studying. To disbelieve, to say I don’t want (or there is nothing) to learn, investigate or explore, is to refuse to study.[iv]

Let me clear this up in terms of atheism (atheism as a disbelief). There are some atheist that say, “there is no evidence therefore there is nothing to study.” But this is clear rejection of study for two reasons. First, there are a lot of scholars who study the concept of God (atheists and religious). The atheist that makes the claim, there is nothing to study, is rejecting all arguments that exist which are against his position; this atheist is not studying. This atheist can only say, “There is nothing to study” because he is refusing to study what is available. This is drastically different than refusing to study the flying spaghetti monster which literally has no proof to investigate.

refuse to study
Disbelief can only come through rejection

The second reason I can charge some atheists with refusing to study is because they admit they are okay not knowing. Origin and meaning of life are deep questions we all ask ourselves. The religious take all the evidence and formulate an opinion, but some atheists shrug and say, “Science doesn’t know yet.” Science doesn’t know yet? Do you know what you are saying? You just said: I don’t know and I’m not going to speculate until a group of people tell me what to think. <— I’m pretty sure that is a straight forward rejection of study, #JustSayin.

As a quick note, not all atheists fit the above category. In fact, some atheists study diligently and I have a lot of respect for them. The generalities listed above are purposefully pointed at the atheist who refuse to admit atheism is a belief system.

But, there is more that needs to be said about the oxymoron of scientific atheism than just semantics.

I titled my post, scientific atheism to address the notion that the study of science will lead to atheism. But this is just as contradictory as study is to disbelief.

A 2009 study was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge) titled, “Empirics on the Origins of Preferences: The Case of College Major and Religiosity.”[v] The group presented the hypothesis that because polls indicate a large number of college students leave the faith[vi] in college, studying scientific advancements lead to disbelief in God. Or, science leads to atheism. The conclusion, however, was vastly different.

As it turns out, the biggest change (i.e. decline) in religion came from a study of the humanities/literature. Physical sciences, like math and biology, had no significant difference (3-5% decline) in religiosity and studying education actually had a positive influence. A quick note about the numbers; by the studies own admission:

“we expect the coefficients on religiosity to be biased downward”.[vii]

So, even the 3-5% decline represented in biology isn’t as statistically drastic[viii] as it appears.

Before we hit the sciences, I’d like to briefly discuss the opposing results in humanities and education (significant fall & rise respectfully) as it relates to religiosity. Humanities classes typically fall into post-modern thinking (everything is relative). It has no objective foundation because the individual chooses what is true for him/her. In fact, one analysis of this particular study proposed that, “broadening world views is the major reason these students lose their faith”.[ix] This brings about yet another oxymoron, though one that will have to be discussed another day, that the degree with no foundation is the foundational position of the education system.[x]

As interesting as this could be, the scientific aspect is astounding…but not for the reason you think.

While students in the sciences did have a slight decline in religiosity, it by no means was conclusive—not everyone lost their religion. So, if students in college can examine the same data and determine different results, we must at some point force ourselves to recognize the human aspect of science—namely the point of interpretation. That is, anyone who states, “Science says ________” is clearly not appreciating the point of science. Science is a tool that produces data that needs to be interpreted by people.

To put it another way, the debate between science and religion is not a debate about data; the debate is about the interpretation of the data.

But the interpretation isn’t the only thing science needs. In fact, science needs non-scientific elements to even exist. In a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Atkins, professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, Dr. Atkins challenged Dr. Craig to think come up with something science couldn’t prove. Dr. Craig’s reply was spot-on,

“Let me list five[xi]…logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle…and finally, most remarkably, would be science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, since it is permeated with unprovable assumptions.”[xii]

So now that we understand science is not end of all knowledge we can find the humor in concluding atheism via scientific inquiry. A great analogy of science and atheism is found in Dr. Edward Feser’s metal detector examination. Feser writes, using science to disprove God is,

“utterly fallacious—as fallacious as appealing to the success of metal detectors to support the claim that only metal exists.”[xiii]

Don’t miss this. Metal detectors find metal, but they aren’t entirely comprised of metal. Science can find physical stuff, but science itself isn’t physical. So the mere idea that science or physical stuff is all there is is ridiculous. Science isn’t physical stuff nor is physical stuff science—how can either claim exclusivity? They can’t!

In conclusion, we must look at what science is investigating. Sir Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, said “true knowledge is knowledge by causes”.[xiv] In order to study causes, science requires repeatability. News flash, random repeatability is another oxymoron. Instead of complete randomness we see consistency. Not only do we see it, we need to see it. Imagine trying to live in an ecosystem that was composed of 21% oxygen one day and 100% nitrogen the next. Imagine trying learn about causes if each cause had a different effect. It would be impossible. Science and life need order, consistency, and stability. Everything about what science does and how it works depends upon a creating agent. In order for science to be conducted and interpreted based on our presuppositions to logic and basic reliability of senses, it needs God; an immaterial Being governing the immaterial to make sense of the physical.

If science needs God and atheists reject God in support of science, we end up with two contradictory terms side-by-side. Scientific atheism is an oxymoron.

[i] New Oxford Dictionary

[ii] My good friend Nate Sala has covered atheism and its belief/non-belief semantics well in his two posts: here & here. So while this topic doesn’t add itself well to the conversation within the post, I do acknowledge there are significant differences in how atheism is viewed (even among atheists) as it relates to belief.

[iii] Google definition. It should be noted that this is not a debate about what atheism is or isn’t to various groups of atheists. Rather, my inclusion of a definition here is solely to point to the non-physical characteristic of atheism which will be drawn out through this entire post.

[iv] I have no doubts this point will be a matter on contention. Many atheist will say something to the effect of, “I have investigated the claims of…” of, “there is no proof/evidence in order to study…”, etc. That’s a lie. I wrote an entire series on this idea here.

[v] http://www.nber.org/papers/w15182.pdf

[vi] This is actually a mischaracterization on the part of the study. The studies in question draw on the attendance of religious services and not sworn statements of faith.

[vii] Pg 19. More information is available within the study to further explain influences upon the answers. The study determines the answers to be depictive of the trend though not fully accurate.

[viii] The study followed approximately 15000 students over 4 years. 5% change is roughly 750 students and hardly drastic though the charts certainly give that appearance.

[ix] Epiphenom, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2010/05/studying-science-doesnt-make-you.html,

[x] I may draw this out to its own post later, if it spikes your interest leave some feedback. But the more I dive into it the further down the rabbit trail I get—I must move on.

[xi] For brevity I only included the 2 most relevant. The 5 Dr. Craig named were: 1) logical and mathematical truths, 2) metaphysical truths about reality, 3) ethical beliefs, 4) aesthetic judgments like beauty, and 5) science itself.

[xii] Frank Turek, “Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case” p162-163

[xiii] Turek, p 160

[xiv] Turek, p 149

45 COMMENTS

  1. Hi, Roger! It’s been a while. I hope all is well.

    Studying concludes in belief–always. Whether that belief affirms that a proposition (i.e. God exists) is true or affirms that the proposition is false (i.e. God does not exist) is indifferent. Studying a topic leads you to either believe it’s true or believe it’s false; it will never lead you to disbelief in the topic.

    This seems patently untrue.

    Let’s look at an example from, say, mathematics. One of the many open questions in mathematics is in regards to the Twin Primes. Twin Primes are pairs of prime numbers with a difference of exactly 2, like 11 and 13, 17 and 19, or 29 and 31. So, naturally, mathematicians have asked, “Is the number of all Twin Primes finite or is it infinite?” This topic has been studied quite arduously for well over a century by a number of the world’s finest number theorists. And their conclusion?

    Lack of belief.

    If you tell a mathematician that there certainly are only a finite number of Twin Primes, that mathematician will not believe you. If you tell him that there certainly are an infinite number of Twin Primes, that mathematician will not believe you. Despite the fact that the number of Twin Primes must either be finite or else infinite, the extensive study and research of mathematicians has led them to conclude that neither case warrants belief, at the moment.

    I see absolutely no reason to think that study of the subject should inevitably lead a person to conclude either that deity does exist or that deity does not exist.

    As a quick note, not all atheists fit the above category. In fact, some atheists study diligently and I have a lot of respect for them. The generalities listed above are purposefully pointed at the atheist who refuse to admit atheism is a belief system.

    I am an atheist who studies diligently. I also deny that atheism is a belief system. Even by the definition which you, yourself, put forward in this very article, atheism refers only to a single question of belief (ie, that of deity) and not to a whole system of beliefs.

    Everything about what science does and how it works depends upon a creating agent.

    This does not follow, in the slightest, from the previous points you made in the article. At most, you could conclude that science depends upon consistent phenomena– a statement with which most atheists would likely agree. However, how do you get from consistent phenomena to the necessity of a creating agent? I see nothing about the nature of consistent phenomena which would require the presence of a creating agent.

    Scientific atheism is an oxymoron.

    I’m not sure what “scientific atheism” is meant to imply by those who use the label. I do not personally utilize this phrase, and indeed, I would likely chafe at seeing it utilized by someone else– precisely as much as I would cringe at seeing someone claim to be a proponent of “scientific theism.” Was this article written as a response to a specific claim? Did someone state that they are an adherent to “scientific atheism?” Or is it simply a response to some atheists’ (and theists’, for that matter) mistaken belief that science and deity are completely irreconcilable concepts?

    • Hi BP! It has been a while. Things have been busy (like most people I know #SadButTrue). Anyway, thanks for bringing some new thoughts to my post. As always, your thoughts are intelligent and respectful–thanks!!

      I would disagree with your study of twin primes example. I don’t think a mathematician would lack after studying. What I mean is, if I was a mathematician who studied calculus and someone asked, “Do you believe twin primes are finite or infinite?” I could say, “I’ve never studies them, but my knowledge of numbers would lead me to believe they are infinite, like the rest of the number system.” I would never answer, twin primes do not exist or (more to the point of this example of atheism)”I am a finite-ist who lacks belief in infinite-ist beliefs”. Studying a topic doesn’t have to be conclusive but the entire purpose of studying is to formulate an opinion–a belief.
      To be clear, the only way to disbelief is to not study the subject. Can you think of a different example of someone who would study a topic and conclude with a disbelief in the topic? I mean, if I researched the flying spaghetti monster and found no compelling evidence to support its existence, I then become someone who believes the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. After researching I must formulate an opinion. In contrast, if I never acknowledge the FSM, then I disbelieve because I’ve never given credence to it. Would you say that is a fair assessment?

      “I am an atheist who studies diligently.”
      And I have a lot of respect for you. I’ve said before I enjoy your willingness to tackle hard issues.
      I don’t think we will find neutral ground, however, because I can’t understand how atheism is not a belief in no-god.

      ” I see nothing about the nature of consistent phenomena which would require the presence of a creating agent.”

      This comes from the foundation of science. In order for science to work it needs consistency. Consistency is not found in a materialistic worldview. It’s a contradiction of terms that I was hoping to point out.

      This post came from being told that science is the key to all knowledge; we don’t need God because science…
      It doesn’t follow. Science and atheism are two different processes. Science investigates what is and atheism is a claim about how it is (and honestly I believe its a really weak belief, though I’m sure those of the opposite perspective say the same about my beliefs). My main focus was to point out these differences.

      Do you think my points were at least justified? Do you think atheists (in general, not all) put too much trust in science as the source of knowledge?

      • I would disagree with your study of twin primes example. I don’t think a mathematician would lack after studying. What I mean is, if I was a mathematician who studied calculus and someone asked, “Do you believe twin primes are finite or infinite?” I could say, “I’ve never studies them, but my knowledge of numbers would lead me to believe they are infinite, like the rest of the number system.”

        Except that, as I have mentioned, there are quite a number of world renowned number theorists, over the past century, who have studied the question of Twin Primes; and these mathematicians have come away with a lack of belief. They do not believe claims that the number of Twin Primes is infinite, and they do not believe claims that the number of Twin Primes is finite. This isn’t just a thought experiment which I am proposing. This is the actual state of mathematics.

        Studying a topic doesn’t have to be conclusive but the entire purpose of studying is to formulate an opinion–a belief.

        I would wholeheartedly disagree. The purpose of studying is to learn things about a subject which conform to reality. If one’s studies on a subject are inconclusive, I’m sure you will agree that this does not give him leave to simply form his desired opinion on that subject. That would, after all, be a textbook case of an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

        To be clear, the only way to disbelief is to not study the subject. Can you think of a different example of someone who would study a topic and conclude with a disbelief in the topic?

        Absolutely! How about an example from Historiography?

        One of my heroes from history is a 10th Century Icelandic man named Egill Skallagrimsson. Based on descriptions of the man’s behavior and appearance from historical documents, some people have come to claim that Egill suffered from an illness known as Paget’s disease. Paget’s causes a thickening of the bones, including the bones of the skull, which could very well explain Egill’s large and ugly appearance, his inordinate strength, and his fits of rage.

        Having studied this quite thoroughly, historians of Medieval Iceland have reached a position of disbelief. They do not believe claims that Egill did have Paget’s disease, and they do not believe claims that Egill did not have Paget’s disease.

        I can think of examples from Physics, Astronomy, Wrestling, Fencing, and a host of other topics, as well.

        This comes from the foundation of science. In order for science to work it needs consistency. Consistency is not found in a materialistic worldview. It’s a contradiction of terms that I was hoping to point out.

        Why do you think consistency is not found in a materialistic worldview? I don’t know of any Materialists who claim that we should expect the world to behave in inconsistent ways, and I am not aware of any logical necessity which shows that Materialism requires inconsistency.

        This post came from being told that science is the key to all knowledge; we don’t need God because science…

        In that case, I will happily agree that such a claim is particularly ignorant, and it is not uncommon find myself arguing with someone who holds to this sort of “scientistic” position.

        Do you think atheists (in general, not all) put too much trust in science as the source of knowledge?

        Certainly there are some atheists who do. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “atheists in general” behave this way, but they are certainly not uncommon.

        • Hmmm. Our twin primes example seems to have developed into an agnostic (knowledge) analogy–from my view anyway. Can I ask how you define disbelief?
          I’m using the term as someone who has no belief, ie the positive is false and the negative is false. A mathematician believes twin primes exist they just don’t make the claim neither exist because they don’t know which is right.
          Atheist that claim disbelief (in my mind, and the point of that particular section in the post) is the idea that atheism is not only a non-belief in theism but atheism is also a non-belief in atheism.
          Is that a fair assessment from your view?

          (I think this seems to be our fundamental hangup, so we can hit the other questions later to avoid distraction if that’s ok)

          Thanks for working this out with me

          • Sorry! This escaped my attention for a few days.

            Can I ask how you define disbelief? I’m using the term as someone who has no belief, ie the positive is false and the negative is false.

            A state in which one does not believe a particular proposition. That is to say, a state in which one holds that a proposition is either false or else that its veracity is indeterminate. So, I would not say that the disbelief entails that a person hold both a proposition and its logical negative to be false at the same time– that’s a fairly obvious violation of Non-Contradiction.

            A mathematician believes twin primes exist they just don’t make the claim neither exist because they don’t know which is right.

            Of course mathematicians believe that Twin Primes exist– that wasn’t the subject of my analogy. The finiteness of the Twin Primes is the subject of the analogy. Mathematicians disbelieve that the set of all Twin Primes is finite, and they disbelieve that the set of all Twin Primes is infinite.

            Atheist that claim disbelief (in my mind, and the point of that particular section in the post) is the idea that atheism is not only a non-belief in theism but atheism is also a non-belief in atheism.

            I’m not sure I’ve ever heard an atheist classify disbelief and atheism in this manner. In general, most of the atheists with whom I converse would say that atheism is simply disbelief in the claims of theism. I’ve never heard an atheist claim that atheism entails a disbelief in atheism– indeed, I’m not even sure what such a statement could possibly mean.

            Thanks for working this out with me

            Absolutely! I’m enjoying the dialogue.

  2. Yet again, your entire work here is supported by unverifiable assumptions which you state as fact. You need to prove that science needs any god before any of your other arguments can carry any weight.

    • Thanks fit continuing to engage. I believe I addressed your concern (that science needs to God) in the last few paragraphs of my post where I discuss random repeatability.
      What do you mean by unverifiable assumptions? Did I write this on holy paper towels or preface it with the divine nature of a cat? Those seem far more outlandish than Merriam-Webster, NBER, or the conclusions of two academic scholars which I referenced in my post.

        • I can verify that science is useless if nothing exists. Fortunately, things do exist. To date, the only explanation is God. Do you have an alternative explanation for all of existence?

          • To date, there is no explanation to why things exist. And none is possible. To have such explanation, we need to study a universe where nothing exists and compare it to our own. Which is impossible, because such universe does not exist (surprise).

            Existence of God does not explain the existence of anything. Why did God decide to create things? He might have chosen not to.

            All of this does not prove it disprove anything except the futility of these arguments.

          • This is why science can only be the study of ‘why’ not ‘how’. Science can not explain why the laws like logic, nature, and other abstracts exists, yet they are used to explain the why often. For example: how did 2+2=4 become true? I don’t know, but it always is: an eternal quality…like its foundation (God).

          • Hi agrudzinsky,

            Sorry for not replying sooner, the feed developed quickly and I missed. But I do want to address your concern about the futility of these types of conversations. I think there is great learning that can take place. From your view, I get the impression that in order for you to believe God created the world, you would need to know God’s motives, is that accurate? Can I ask, what are your current beliefs about God? Also, if you don’t mind, what is your background with Christianity? I ask because it helps me focus my response in ways you can relate. Thanks for taking the time to engage and learn with me.

          • Sure. My cat created the universe. Or invisible and discorporeal elephants. Or Allah. Or Odin. “The only explanation is god” is what you’ve reasoned out and believe. Great. But you can’t claim it as fact.

          • AST! You’ve nailed it! I didn’t think we’d get this far, but I’m really excited that you’re understanding.

            By no means was I trying to establish the Christian God in this post. The point I was making was: the study of science does not conclude with atheism. So, now that you realize science needs a creator we can discuss the evidence of your cat vs the Christian God. I think you’ll you’ll agree that although the proof for your cat is comparable, it is considerably lacking in comparison. Are you willing to investigate my claims to their entirety, or are you stuck on the divinity of your cat?

          • Ha! You are so deep in your delusion you actually think I agreed with you on some level. I never said I believe science needs a creator. I said you need to prove that before any of your other arguments can carry any weight. I have thoughtfully considered your claims. They’re a wonderful exercise in reasoning. Unfortunately that’s all they are. Thoughtfully reasoning to a conclusion that makes sense to you doesn’t equal evidence.

          • My question was, what do you believe was the first cause. You said “my cat…”
            I’m happy to know you recognize materialism isn’t an adequate response. My excitement continues as you now recognize my opinion as “thoughtful reasoning to a conclusion that makes sense…”
            ATS, we’ve come a long way. So, if my reasoning makes sense, do you also agree that the alternative does not make sense?
            I also see you are still hung up on acceptable evidence? To that I ask you this question, if all the evidence showed that there was something inside the electron that had not been discovered yet, but based on things already discovered (repeatable, observable, etc) a prediction was made that with more powerful microscopes we would see a mass influencing the parts we do know about, is that possible?
            Is it possible that what we know is influenced by what we don’t know?

          • You left off the key part of my quote. “… Makes sense to you.” I did not say it made sense to me. Clearly, all my arguments to date are because it doesn’t make sense to me. Again, you bring up irrelevant arguments that sound great and all science-y but are meaningless and simply an attempt at redirection. Discovering another level of how the universe works doesn’t prove your presupposition of a creator being. Its humorous you say “hung up” on acceptable evidence like to negatively color it. This is all about acceptable evidence which you have yet to provide.

          • Perfect! You’re understanding how communication works. Now let’s apply those same principles to biblical texts. It would have been really hard for early Jews to accept a Messiah that wasn’t a political ruler. They were so focused on what they wanted to see they missed what was right in front of them. But at the resurrection, we see hundreds and thousands instantly recognize the truth. It’s like a light bulb moment.
            I’m really glad to see you questioning your own beliefs in this process. It was this same process that converted the early Jews and gentiles (a biblical way to say everyone that wasn’t a Jew…like you and me).
            Never stop questioning the things you believe. There can be only one trueth. And I’m glad to hear you are seeing the wholesale in the atheist reasoning (i agree it doesn’t make sense).

          • OK, now you’re just being a jerk or delusional. Maybe commenting on the wrong conversation? I’ve said nothing in agreement with you. Thanks for defining “gentiles” like I’m an ignorant child. Do you question what you believe? What would change your mind?

          • Why the name calling? If I misrepresent you, perhaps you could restate your position.

            Of course my mind could change. If universes began spouting up naturally, new life began from nothing, and that new life showed an instant ability to survive, reproduce, and develop non material things like communication. That would certainly indicate natural laws had the ability to do what science needs them to do but haven’t seen yet. That would be a start.

            What about you, what would it take to change your mind?

          • Your responses aren’t simple misrepresentations. You’re trying to move the conversation to me having to prove my position instead of you proving yours. Nice try. My position is and has been clear. So to make sure I’m clear: you would need to see a universe spontaneously appear; then watch some manner of sentient life magically appear; then watch that lifeform communicate before you would consider god not existing. Yes? Evidence that a god exists would change my mind. Present some. Something that anyone and everyone on the planet would look at and say there’s a god and its the Christian god.

          • Would you agree, if a man named Jesus existed and spoke of himself as God and substantiated that claim with the prediction and fulfillment of his death, burial, and resurrection. That would be (if it were true) substantial evidence the Christian God exists?

          • Sure. But you can’t prove the resurrection part. I’m not sure you can prove the crucifixion part either. If memory serves the only document that related that tale is the bible. I may be wrong on that point. Regardless, if you can’t prove the resurrection, the core belief, everything else is meaningless.

          • That’s great. We’ll get to the evidence in a moment. First, you agree if the biblical narrative is correct that would certainly prove the Christian God exists.
            Now, what evidence would it take to prove the biblical narrative?

          • Your last comment said prove it to you. I’m asking a clarification question. What would prove it to you?

            If you’re really not interested we can go on our merry way. Respectfully.

          • Evidence. You’re the one making the claims. Its up to you to produce the evidence. Not my job to provide examples. You’re just fishing for me to say something that you can spin. Again, nice try.

          • The inevitable retreat and spin to imply that I’m the one leaving. Try this question to answer yours about what proof I require: if I claimed I could fly like Superman, what evidence would you want to see for verification? If I claimed an ancestor of mine, who lived in the 1600s, could also fly, what evidence would convince you?

          • Hi Daniel,

            Thanks for commenting. Can you tell me why you think I was misleading you? I wanted to draw out the point that science, on its own, does not conclude with atheism–they are very different in both definitions and applications.

            How do you relate the two terms?

    • Gödel’s Theorem
      In 1931 these false philosophies of math crumbled into dust when Gödel proved his Undecideability Theorem. Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.

      Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
      Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
      Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
      The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
      https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/taking-god-out-of-the-equation/

  3. Disbelief is not incompatible with study. Science works by taking a proposition (hypothesis), then testing (or studying) it. The study results in accepting or rejecting the proposition. Rejection, or disbelief, in this context, is not a refusal to study. It’s one of the possible results of the study.

    The fallacy of atheism is different. Scienific method can only prove or disprove testable propositions. When atheists require the evidence for the existence of God, they clearly lack understanding of their beloved scientific method.

  4. Roger, I’ve loved science since a small boy, but its limits are test tubes, microscopes, and telescopes. I longed to answer the question of foundation and only find that in God. Thanks
    Tony Vance

  5. The universe had a beginning. Science and the Bible both agree. The universe is perfectly created (see cosmological constants) by an intelligent source which existed before and maintained. Science cannot explain what was before the universe came into existence (before time, space, and matter). CAN SCIENCE EXISTS BEFORE THE UNIVERSE?

Comments are closed.