The godlessness of science so-called

The point of this reblog is to thank ColorStorm for a kind compliment and for his post on a very difficult topic.

In addition I would like to add a few thoughts that ColorStorm’s post inspired me to write.

Yesterday I listened to this guy, W. Robert Godfrey, teach a history lesson => This lesson is part of a superb series on the history of the Christian church.

In this lesson, Godfrey talked about the disciplined teaching of 17th Century Bible Scholars. Godfrey admired those scholars for their disciplined logic, and he made the point that we are usually much less disciplined in our conversations than we need to be. We leap for the answer before we have spelled out the question. So we talk pass each other. Often no one even knows what the debate is about.

What happens when we talk about proving the existence of God? Some argue that science proves there is no God. Another group says science proves God exist, and yet another group says science has no power either to prove God exists or does not exist. What we neglect to ask first is the most important question. What is proof? Until we have a common understanding of what would constitute proof, we don’t even know what sort of evidence is needed. We just know what evidence we personally find meaningful.

When I read that passage ColorStorm quoted from Romans (part of Romans 1:18-32), I believe I see what Paul saw. The magnificence. The infinite power. The majesty. The order. The quiet beauty. The unlimited concern of a craftsman who loves His work. But what about proof? What sort of proof did Paul see?

What Paul argues is that God’s existence is made self-evident through His creation.

Is there proof that is self-evident? Yes, but here is the conundrum. To believe some proofs are self-evident, we must believe some truths are self-evident, and some say we know that there are no self-evident truths. Those people (atheists in particular) are obviously not mathematicians.

Consider this definition.

axiom [ak-see-uh m] (from =>
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Unless we assume some truths are self-evident, we cannot prove anything. Unless we accept some truths as axiomatic or foundational, we have nothing upon which to build any system of logic. Unless we believe that some truths are self-evident, we have no basis for either mathematics or science.

Hence, because God’s existence is self-evident, science cannot logically prove the existence of God.

The Lions Den

(In a post at Palmyra, the solid thinking CTom offered a comment that is worthy of its own consideration. He says: ‘We can only use science to study his Creation.’  If he also means that through science God can be found, I agree, but if he says science cannot prove God, then I believe we have not seen the hidden gems of scripture.  Will my case be proven in these few words? Nope, but they will offer one more weight that crushes the scales of godlessness. Take your time reading, and Enjoy.

It is true that science proves nothing regarding God, but then again, true science proves  everything as to God. See the difference?  I make a distinction because there is one. While the Creator leaves the HOW to His creatures, He has not left us clueless as to the WHY. But He gave us an admonition to be wary…

View original post 1,265 more words

28 thoughts on “The godlessness of science so-called

  1. Good stuff CT, when we say science cannot prove God, maybe we need a better definition of science. 😉

    I would like to emphasize the foreknowledge of God through Paul in giving us a head’s up to be ware of ‘science falsely so-called.’

    Science is dangerous in the hands of unsanctified minds, and at the very least, I take this as ALL conclusions are suspect when filtered through data, suppositions, assumptions, and theories, which leave out the only critical component that gives definition to the conclusions: Exact truth. God is exact. And exact science, in my opinion, leads to the only conclusion worthy of ‘proofs.’

    False science has their ‘zillions of years’ of guesswork, and insane ideas of life, things which can never be tested, since there is no benchmark, since there is no point of reference; the cleverest imagination wins the scientific day, and the adherents are applauded as heroes, meanwhile back in reality, the consistency of God’s promises to provide hot and cold, night and day, are ignored.

    God’s truths’ change not; while science changes daily. ‘More information’ they say is needed, blah blah blah. Without God, all opinions are faulty and biased.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Tsalmon,

    I can subscribe to your opinion. of the possible reason for decrease in Christianity. However, if you consider the mathematics over time in not teaching a child your religious beliefs, the numbers will decrease because their are less and less children being taught. The math is over time there will be less children growing up and teaching their children, etc. etc.

    This has happened in history, yet there always for some reason, a new religious resurrection take place.

    Why that happens, only God knows., in my opinion.

    However, I sense in the USA, there may be a new cycle taking place

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As Tom aludes above, before you can have a debate, you have to agree on the issue. A while back ago I read books by those famous preachers of atheism, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. I found their books to be mostly a polemic argument rather than a rational one, and that they picked the wrong people to preach against if they really wanted to have a serious debate on the existence of God. Instead of focusing their arguments toward serious Christian philosophers back to Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, these atheists of course would rather pick a fight against modern literalists and fundamentalists that believe things like the universe is only 5,000 years old. This makes for a good deal of confirmation biased applause from their atheist fans, but it is all heat, and no real light illuminates the actual issues.

    I think that believers have to be careful about the statements that they make are actually true. For example, for me to say “I know God exists” is a statement that can be easily criticized because it starts from the premise that I can define an infinite and unfathomable God. How can I know and prove something exists that is infinitely beyond my comprehension? On the other hand what I can say with some confidence is that something must exist that has certain attributes (along with an infinite number of other attributes) if everything actually exists as I know it to exist, and that we are going to name that entity (or in other words, imperfectly symbolize it) as “God”,even though we can never completely define the term. Two of the five of those attributes that Aquinas points out are that God must be the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover.

    Without getting into too much depth here on these arguments, Aquinas does not take on the impossible task of defining or proving the infinite, but instead logically argues that, because something with certain attributes must logically exist for existence to exist, and only the one God could have these attributes, then their must be God.

    Are these arguments “self evident”. Perhaps, depending upon how we define the term “self evident” but I honestly don’t think so because of the way that Aquinas makes the argument. For example, Aquinas does not start from the axiomatic premise and then work forward. Aquinas instead looks at the empirical universe and quite logically and rationally works backward to God.

    As Tom knows, there are many arguments that really good philosopher apologists make for the existence of God and some arguments are stronger than others. The “self evident” arguments began with enlightenment philosophers like Descartes and Kant. And these arguments are to some extent probative, but it seems to me from what little knowledge that my layman’s study has gleaned, that the tautological fallacy of “self evident”argument, if it is the only argument, opened up Christianity to the nonsense that we see now from atheists (and Fundamentalists) that only God or science can exist so we have to make a choice. Nietzsche’s “will to power” argument has axioms that logically lead to something morally abhorrent that is just as apparent and workable (and probably more so) in reality as the implications of Descartes’ or Kant’s axioms. The domination of the claw and the fang really is pretty apparent in history and today. And the rationalist enlightenment philosophers find it hard to overcome that obvious reality.

    This is where I’m going to disagree with SW above a little. I think that this, rather than public education, is where western thought on God went astray. We relied too heavily on good but inconclusive enlightenment arguments and the better but more complex limited metaphysical arguments of the Middle Ages fell out of fashion and were forgotten by most Christians. In my humble opinion, those are still the best arguments out there for the existence of something with certain attributes that we call God. They also compliment science and only seem to be more and more confirmed by science as scientific knowledge grows. However, explaining this to our Christian neighbors is harder than speaking in separate languages and to explain it to an atheist is like speaking to someone from another galaxy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Since the philosophy and the metaphisics really are so complex and hard to explain, maybe SW’s quote from King Solomon is the best we can do.

      Or as the late mother to Tom and I might have put it, “Oh my word”. To her simple pure faith, this whoke discussion would be a foolish waste of time. She would have looked up and said, “God just is. Now be quiet, eat your peas and go finish your homework.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Were it possible, it would be interesting to listen to the Apostle Paul debate St. Thomas Aquinas.

        Here is what St Thomas Aquinas said about whether the existence of God is self-evident.

        I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways; on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject; because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3, A. 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be, demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects. (from =>

        What about Q. 3, A. 4?

        The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in “Meteph. ii.” Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

        Does St Thomas Aquinas think the existence of God is self-evident? Not exactly, but the Apostle Paul seems to. When I read Romans 1:18-32, Paul says we have no excuse. Here are the key verses that ColorStorm quoted.

        Romans 1:19-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

        19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

        Do we know God? An infinite Being beyond our comprehension? Of course not. Nevertheless, as a practical matter we know God. We know “there must something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.” To the Apostle Paul this was so obvious we could not miss it. However, because we cannot perceive God directly, St Thomas Aquinas believed what the Apostle Paul saw as obvious had to be restated as a proof. Why? Have not got the foggiest idea.


        1. Tom,

          You nailed it’. Great way to look at it – a discussion between St. Thomas and St. Paul. It staggers the imagination. Maybe I’m just a geek, but I love this kind of stuff.😇

          Liked by 1 person

  4. tsalmon

    King Solomon;s definition, 3000 years ago was a person who did not believe in God was a fool..

    I do not recommend you call your atheists friends a fool though. Perhaps first just enlightenment to what the ancient definition of a fool

    It is not entirely their fault what they believe because our government schools are secular and there seems to be a correlation of the dwindling numbers of practicing Christians or other faiths in the past 50 years or so that might have been the result of a Supreme Court Decision of Separation of Church and State and lawsuits being challenged by the ACLU.

    I believe school vouchers may help parents pay for private religious schools tuition which many families cannot afford because their income does not allow it because they have to pay high taxes to support high cost government run schools.

    Check and see how much in total you are now paying to Federal, Local, State taxes to support government run secular schools. You might be amazed.

    Then enlighten them to the costs we all are paying for high cost secular public schooling.

    In my opinion, it is because we voters are fools both in the ancient and modern definitions to have allowed it it silently happen.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. When you check the cost of the public school system, look at the total cost. When the sneaky people do is just report the operating costs. To keep the figures as low as possible the exclude things like the capital required to buy school buildings. This, of course, is hilarious. Because of the growth in population where I live (partly due to illegal immigration), we have lots of children going to school in trailers because they don’t have the money for expensive school buildings.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. i can relate to that with an even worse scenario in Elmhurst Il.

        I remember trying to convince our school board not to sell or tear down existing schools but to mothball them back when our town experienced children growing up and the school population decrease.

        This happens in every town as the residents cycle of age of residents grow older.

        Of course the short sighted school board did not listen and the result was as the older residents move on and the younger families moved in, yep, there were trailers at every school,

        Oh well, what can you expect from school board members who have no long range insight.

        Regards and goodwill blogging

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Tom,

    I see what you mean. I have several old and dear friends who are atheists. They often ask me in bewilderment how I can believe in such an irrational superstition as God. I tell them that I am just as baffled how they can believe that everything that they know to be true came from nothing. It seems to me that that believing in no cause at all is far more superstitious than believing the growing of plants and trees is caused by elves and fairies. The people who believe in fairies and elves are not so dumb that they think that the growing of greenery has no cause – they are just wrong about the cause. Thinking that everything came from nothing is not just an impossible leap of faith far more distant than religious belief, it also defies reason and science.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. One of the people who use to visit this blog, Keith (he has not been well), calls himself a non-theist. When I questioned him, he said he did not know whether God exists. Logically, it is impossible to prove God does not exist. So effectively, Keith is an agnostic, but for some reason he does not like that label. Non-theist works too, I guess.

      Many so-called atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exists. What they refuse to believe is that the existence of God is self evident. What I think they don’t understand is there is no rigid criteria for what is self-evident. What is self-evident is supposed to be an obvious truth. The problem is that some people don’t find certain truths as obvious as other people.


  6. Great choice of word, axiom.

    Kinda reminds me of two people arguing about the axiom what came first, the chicken or the egg.

    The scientific axiom is the big bang?

    My personal axiom is God designed the big bang, the chicken, and the egg.

    Which axioms are the truth?

    Only God knows according to King Solomon’s Ecclesiastes about writing endless books about the subject to explain what they still can’t prove an axiom because they do not have the capacity

    Interesting subject though.

    Perhaps that is why God wants us to think about It, same as He wants us to think about what is wise or foolish choices we should think about in life in order to get a big bang out of life.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. scatterwisdom

      We choose those things as axiomatic ultimately because they work. If an axiom, essentially an assumption, provides the foundation for a logical structure for mathematical equation that don’t match what we see the real world, then the axiom is somehow flawed. However, mathematical equation matches what we see in the real world, then that gives us confidence in the axiom.

      Similarly, belief in the existence of a Creator God, the God of Abraham and Jacob, makes sense because that belief provides the foundation for a system of behavior that makes sense. What we call wise is based upon our belief in the God of Abraham and Jacob.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “makes sense” to me.

        I can’t figure out why it wouldn’t make sense to anyone else if they just took a little time out to figure it out for themselves rather than reading and listening to a bunch of fools opinions without any common sense to figure it out.

        Of course that’s my opinion which I arrived at after spending a lot of time writing a novel based on King Solomon’s writings.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I contend, that in scientific language axiom is the wrong word for the Big Bang. It is a theory, i.e. a complex model that has proven helpful to explain observations and was used to successfully make predictions. In the case of Big Bang theory predictions about the finer structure of the microwave background radiation were made, before they became accessible to measurement.

      Axiom is usually reserved for very basic, fundamental assumptions that are considered true. The Newtonian Laws of Motion would be an example.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @marmoewp

        When scatterwisdom used the word “axiom”, I think he was being facetious.

        Are the Newtonian Laws of Motion, properly speaking, axioms. Maybe not. See the beginning of => and =>

        You may find this interesting =>


        1. Thank you for these interesting links. When I studied physics the philosophical musings of Newton and other scientists did not come up. You learn the complex mathematical theories used to describe the physical world and the mathematics that you need to understand and work with these theories, as well as the limits beyond which the theories are no longer (strictly) valid as a description of the physical world.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Glad to know big bang is a theory. I believe a lot of people are under the impression that it is a scientific fact.

        Thanks for explaining.

        Regards and goodwilll blogging.


        1. You seem to be falling for a linguistic trap. The word “theory” has a very different meaning in science than in colloquial usage. In science, a theory is a body of observational knowledge combined with a set of unifying principles, that enable us to understand a large regime of observations and make predictions. “Theory” in science is as good as it can get, it is considered established fact to the best of our knowledge. Electrodynamics is a theory in this sense, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Classical Mechanics are theories in this sense. So are the Big Bang, Evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Big Bang Theory may well not be the Truth (TM), but it is an excellent concept for explaining vast areas of astronomical observations. Any theory replacing it will have to be at least as good as it at doing so.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks for the comment and information.

            One fact for certain, is when our time is up, we will either know for certain what is fact, fiction, theory, axiom, etc.

            Same with our faith beliefs.

            If I am wrong, it won’t make any difference whether whatever we believed is fact or fiction, wise or foolish.

            However, if what we believed was wise or foolish in our life, it will be forgotten in time by everyone except perhaps, our Creator?

            Regards and goodwill blogging.


  7. This is interesting. Isn’t this line of thinking called begging the question?

    Also, isn’t it possible to build an elaborate system that is logical in the abstract and initially apparent but that does not apply to reality because the underlying premise is false?

    What about self evident truths that seem obvious until we get the tools to explore them like “It is self evident that the Sun circles the Earth”?

    From a pedogogical understanding isn’t this the difference between inductive verses deductive reasoning, or is it more like a variation on the tautological philosophy of Popeye “I ams what I ams” or in this case, “It is what it is”?

    I’m not sure I’m smart enough to understand the pedagogical principles, but this is a really fascinating topic Tom.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Consider. One of the reasons science took off in the West is the belief in one God, a God who is not capricious. The Greeks believed in logic, but Christian scholars took their belief in the self-evident existence of God and applied logic to look for orderly systems of cause and effect relationships in nature.

      Effectively, because belief in God is axiomatic to math and science, it makes no sense to try to prove the existence of God using either math or science.


    2. Note also that by definition using mathematics and science does not make any sense. God is the Creator. By definition He exists outside of and acts upon the universe that we use math and science to study. As far as we know, math and science don’t exist outside the universe, but God does.

      If someone builds a house, we might look for that guy in the house, However, just because we cannot find the builder does not mean someone did not build the house.


Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

The Stories In Between

Author River Dixon


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Artaxes' brainbench

Truth in an age of deception

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

"Let Us Live Lives Extraordinarily"


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: