Five Things Science Can’t Explain

Written by Darren Hewer

void
Watch now: How to fill the void and find purpose.

Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us.

Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method:

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

None of this is meant to criticize science! There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. There are more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!

For the kinds of truth listed above, science is not deficient in any way; it’s just not the right way to find those particular kinds of truth. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

There is one other kind of truth that cannot be proven or disproven by science. That’s because it is comprised of all of the other kinds of truth mentioned above mixed together: Religious truth. It does have a certain amount of overlap with science, when religion makes explicit claims about scientific fact, and when science makes explicit claims about religion. But the overlap tends to be rather small; in any case, true science and true religion, because they both aim to describe reality, can never be in conflict. (Read “Science & Religion: Conflict or Coherence?” for more on this topic.)

Why then does science often seem so straightforward and uncontroversial, whereas religion can be so difficult and contentious?

It may have something to do with a fact hinted at earlier: Religious truth is multifaceted. It is comprised of science, logic, philosophy, history, ethics, and experience, all mixed together. It is, in a sense, a different kind of knowing, not ignorant the other kinds of truths, but requiring that they be studied together carefully.

Rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be deficient when considering divine things. This shouldn’t be too surprising, considering that if God truly does exist, God is in a different category from every created thing that we can grasp and study under a microscope: God, unlike every created thing, is in the “uncreated things” category. Science, and each of the other kinds of truths, will have something to say about God. But none of these individually can tell us everything. All are necessary, but no single approach by itself is sufficient.

If that is the case, where should a person start a serious investigation into religion amidst all the complexity? Where should a person begin?

In his suspenseful novel Five Sacred Crossings author and religious scholar Craig Hazen presents through his narrative five “sacred crossings,” or compelling reasons to consider Christianity first. This is merely an exceedingly short summary of what Hazen explains (and argues for) in much more detail in his book:

1) It is testable. Christianity does not make merely esoteric claims; it makes claims about logic, science, history, philosophy, and ultimately reality itself.

2) It paints a picture of the world that matches reality. It does not force a person to deny that our world is real. Rather it cohesively explains why things are the way they are.

3) It makes a non-compartmentalized life possible. The Christian faith does not require a person to live one way when thinking about “religious” things and a totally different way at all other times.

4) It presents salvation as a free gift. Every other religion in the world presents some sort of works-based way to re-connect with God. But at the heart of the Christian message is grace, not more demands to somehow work our way to God.

5) It has Jesus at the center. Jesus is the most compelling (and controversial) figure in history. Many other religions claim to respect him, but Christianity is founded upon his life, teaching, and identity. Why not begin by getting to know him?

One man who took on such a challenge was Dr Alister McGrath, who earned two doctorates at Oxford University, one in molecular biophysics, the other in theology. He described his spiritual and intellectual journey to the Christian faith in this way:

“At Oxford – to my surprise – I discovered Christianity. It was the intellectually most exhilarating and spiritually stimulating thing I could ever hope to describe – better than chemistry, a wonderful subject that I had thought to be the love of my life and my future career. I went on to gain a doctorate for research in molecular biophysics from Oxford, and found that immensely exciting and satisfying. But I knew I had found something better – like the pearl of great price that Jesus talks about in the Gospel, which is so beautiful and precious that it overshadows everything. It was intellectually satisfying, imaginatively engaging, and aesthetically exciting.” 1

How to find a clear purpose and meaning to life.

Further Reading:

A Scientist’s Search for Truth – Astrophysicist Hugh Ross describes his journey to faith.
The Uniqueness of Jesus – What made Jesus so special anyways?
What Does your Soul Crave? – Destiny? Intimacy? Meaning?
Contact us with Questions – Talk with someone confidentially via email.

1 Alister McGrath, The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (London, England: Fortress Press, 2008), 27.

EmailPrint

358 Responses to “Five Things Science Can’t Explain”

  • Sharon says:

    good article and good thread too on this site

  • Marco Pelser says:

    Science can prove that you are not merely a brain in a jar being manipukated to think what is in fact is. How? Simple. The kind of jar necessary is not in fact a mere ordinary jar that you are talking about, but rather a highly complex machine. That already disproves the concept of a jar.

    As for the five minutes ago, five minutes at a different energy frequency could be 5 million minutes. But in real-time, according to our solar clock, it is clearly impossible for the universal physics to ring true in only five minutes. It all depends on what you compare things to, historic truth is repeatable. If i pick up an apple and throw it at the wall I can do it again. It may be a different wall or the same one, but the truth of it is repeatable.

    Logic is based on certainty, how we derive whay is certain as opposed to what is ever so uncertain and unresourceful, how we use creativity and logic to invent what people belief to be impossible because of uncertainty.

    Science can prove that rape is evil. It can when you compare what is good and evil. You can argue that morals are based on what ought to be, however science says otherwise. Evil can be considered a malicious frame of mind, someone intent on harming another with no empathy or care. Its all about your metrics, and a metric is based on comparison, and oughtness is based on performatives, the goals in question. If the goal of good is to make life enjoyable for all who experience it, then it is proper to say someone ought to, and can be, considered evil for raping another.

    Even if that person commiting the act is unaware of their own nature, comparitively, that person is evil to those who know good.

    Science can prove that, yes. And science can prove that your wife loves you based on her own measurable conviction and belief in her love for you and the resolute definition of her understanding of love and how she believes to communicate it. You can prove she loves you by repeatability of historical truth, her sacrifices to spend time with you. In fact, with science you can also prove whether or not she will continue to love you in future.

    Theres a lot more to love that you can measure, test and predict, validate and confirm, but not if you have a shallow or limited understanding when it comes to how love can be expressed, and how it is experienced and manifested.

    Science can prove love and love can prove science, they are very much cooperative, otherwise the idea of love wouldnt even exist in anyones mind. The fact that you conceive the concept means that it is provable.

    Science is not intended to prove that an uncertainty is a certainty. That is why most chirstians have a problem with science, they believe we dont believe in God because we cannot prove God exists, which is not the case, the majority of scientists do believe in God, they just know the face of “God” through a different light and scope. We all believe in God whether God is genderless, It, the universe, ENERGY, but we dont believe in anyone elses version of god other than our own version, our account.

    If values are more important than the stories they come from, why is the world wasting time fighting over stories, and not living up to those values, values that may change the entire course of human life, forever.

    We are bickering over stories, [expletive removed] the story, if we said [expletive removed] all the stories, i believe we would all realize very quickly how many values we have that are exactly the same.

    We have separated our collective understanding of LIFE or ENERGY or GOD into these redundant stories, and we would all be better off if we focussed on living up to our values and learning eachothers values, abd using science to optimize how we express and deliver on those values, how we [expletive removed] contribute.

    Remarkably writing a brand new future.

    After all… if Jesus knew that the world was so important that he needed to sacrifice himself, his legacy, to save it… shouldnt that be the greatest lesson of all?

    That if the story gets in the way of the future we need to let it go…

    That it doesnt matter what the story is as long as we are willing to sacrifice the greatest truth we may all differently believe in to live up to its values…

    To sacrifice being right for being good… instead of forfeiting both…

    One of the hardest challenges for a christian is letting go of the story and living up to the values…

    But isnt that the same for the scientist, muslim, pagan, etc?

    If the values are so important why are we arguing over the story they came from…

    We all know truth…

    But who can face it???

    If you are not proactive, physically contributing anything, willing to be a servant of the people for the sake of your own sovereignty, then it doesnt matter how pure your intentions or how honest your story is…

    The story of your action counts most.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    Fair enough Richard. It seems you have thought much on these things and have come to some reconciliation in your mind that the path you’re on will be “acceptable.” I’m sure you’d agree though, that we can believe many things that turn out to be wrong.

    My journey led me to trust that the God of the Bible is the only God, and that the Bible is his revealed word to mankind. My responsibility as a Christian is to witness of that truth to those who are still outside of the will of God and will therefore be judged by him when they die. As Jesus said, “”If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    Even if you have done some reading of the Bible and/or the specific claims and teachings of Jesus, I hope you will revisit those things. If you hold Jesus with any esteem whatsoever, consider that he stated flatly that the only way you can have a relationship with God is through him; and that relationship is a make-or-break relationship for all eternity. No religion will provide that. None of man’s teachings will equal that.

    If you ever have any questions, I or someone else on this blog would be most happy to answer those questions. I know that the Christians on this site are praying that you will come to know Jesus personally. Since I did so, I’ve had the “ride of my life.”

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Sorry Tom. In my first sentence of my latest reply ” joy ” should be ” you”. There is also a subject- verb agreement problem I missed. Typing on this phone is difficult because it’s hard to scroll back to proofread. Otherwise the thoughts expressed are indeed what I think about speculating about death. Thanks for your patience, Tom.

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Tom
    Perhaps joy also have experienced people who feel that if they don’t think or believe a certain way, then their worst fears will be realized. Imagining that the questions I may ask about what may happen to me after death seem to be in that same ballpark – that is, there already is an a priori belief that ones earthly behavior may influence what may happen to one after death. What is ” right” and ” wrong” behavior can never be immediately determined , much as the cliche that says although we feel it is wrong to kill, what about if one had the chance to kill the infant Hitler and thereby prevent the future results of his then nascent self? To think one can influence what will happen after death reminds me of the Middle Ages story of “Everyman” who is told to bring his book of count – his good deeds as white balls and bad deeds as black balls – to be weighed by Death to determine whether or not he will go to heaven or hell. I don’t subscribe to that type of thinking. Nor am I a Calvinist or Viking who believes my fate has already been decided and it is not by deeds but by ” Gods Grace” that one is saved. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed earlier that I favor a Buddhist approach to such matters – that only through realizing the truth of the causes of suffering and understanding the incorrect view of dualistic ( right/ wrong etc) thinking can one live this life in an authentic way as is possible. I had mentioned before more than once that the view expressed in The Heart Sutra represent for me the highest knowledge one can reach , and while I believe its words totally, I don’t pretend that I have any more than a modicum of understanding about it. This life is where I believe ones focus should be, and speculating about an afterlife can only remain just that – speculation.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    If you had a growth on your side and it was getting bigger, I’m wondering if your response would be, “it doesn’t matter what I think or believe about such matters since what is, IS”? I suspect you would want to learn the truth of what it is because of the possible consequences of not knowing and ignoring it.

    When I was 46, my aunt died from a tumor on her neck. As I sat in the hospital room watching her die, it dawned on me that I’d probably lived more than half of my life and one day, like it or not, I too would die. I had enough concern about myself that I asked the question, what will happen to me when I die? If some of what I’d had explained to be as a child was actually true, I could be in big trouble when I died. So I began to investigate and seek for some answers. I had a lot of preconceived notions and half-beliefs in a bunch of things. It took six months, but I came to the conclusion of what I now know to be the real truth.

    How about you Richard? You’re not immortal; the looming day of your death is getting bigger. Doesn’t it make sense to seek the truth of what will happen on that day rather than saying, “What is, is”?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Whatever my speculation about your questions, Tom, it doesn’ matter what I think or believe about such matters since what is, IS; my answer is : I don’t know.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    Thank you once again for your comments and observations. It’s refreshing and valuable to share others beliefs and ideas.

    Now don’t think you are the only one who can get “aggressive” about your beliefs at times. (Maybe a more appropriate term would be “passionate”)? Although I would love to admit that I always follow the golden rule (you probably know that Jesus first coined the phrase), as a Christian there are still plenty of times when my sinful nature pops up to override my Christian faith and relationship with the Lord. Being a Christian doesn’t make one better than anyone else; it just makes one better off–from an eternal standpoint.

    So if you don’t mind me asking: just where DO you stand regarding spiritual things? Why do you think we’re here, and where do you think you’d go if you died right now?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Thank you for your sincere answer and explanation, Tom. No one , I believe, can take issue with since belief, especially since yours offers such comfort and finality for you. I dislike when I tend to get aggressive when presenting my arguments, especially since as a Christian you must most certainly believe in and practice the Golden Rule – something no one in my opinion can take issue with. I think personally think the ethics of a religion like Christianity offer much latitude for positive, sincere discussion. The more ” cosmic” aspects of religion seem to be not so fertile ground for agreement as much as can discussions which deal with ethics. Ethics matter. Speculating about the beginnings of the universe doesn’t really seem to matter as much as developing understanding between ” believers” and those who argue so much for rationality that they forget that kindness and understanding trump abstract knowledge any day of the week! Thank you for your sincerity, Tom.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    Actually, I’m always anxious to answer any questions. But sometimes I don’t understand the question. Sorry.

    As for a “self/soul,” I firmly believe that the one who created all things has not only given us a soul/spirit, but that our spirit is made in the image of the one who gave us such. That’s in order that we can have a connection to the creator. I also believe that the creator desired for us to know him and has therefore revealed himself to us so that we can know he exists and that we can have that relationship with him. We don’t have to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out where we came from, why we’re here, and what the meaning of our existence is. We don’t have to invent all sorts of religions or seek some inner peace/nirvana; we can know the truth of our existence and spending our lives in order to please the one who gave us life.

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Anyone telling someone something is simply that. There is no reason – except belief- to think someone other than another human being can do that. Knowledge not gained by individual effort is not knowledge – someone has told someone something which may or may not be true. You did say you don’t think anything but a human can have an essence but you didn’t answer my question as to where such essence is in a human being. Belief without proof remains belief andpeoplebelieve a whole lot of ideas which of course is what most people do. There have been many many religions purporting to know ” the meaning of life”. Take your pick – if they are based on belief they are all essentially equal. You are right though – you don’t seem to understand or want to answer my question re is there a self/ soul or not.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    If knowledge is “put into” someone, there must have been a “someone” or “something” of higher knowledge and understanding that placed it there, right?

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    I guess I’m not understanding the question. However, if you’re referring to something having a sense of being or of self, there is no reason to believe that anything less than a human being would have any sense of essence or self; and I would suggest that these senses were created, not coming from chance or happenstance.

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Concerning meaning to life, it is up to each individual to determine that, isn’t it? Otherwise one would be told the meaning of life and that is not satisfying to me- knowledge does not come From books etc- it is put Into them. And relying on someone else to tell you the meaning of life places one in a subservient position ie who told the person who tells you the ” meaning of life?” If one believes all humans are born equal in value, then one would appreciate someone who might help someone to discover meaning, but it could never be effectively told to someone because in this universe there is no human better by nature than another – unless you ” believe” that is so. I don’t. When the truth of nothingness is known, there CanBe no ” better” or ” lesser” Nothingness shows everything Whole and Equal in value. If this is not so , answer the question which asks you to show where the ” essence” or ” soul” is.

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Tom
    I appreciate you responding to my question, but if there is to be further discussion I would like you to answer the questions I posed, mainly – does any matter , from supposedly the smallest to a human being, have any ” essence” or ” self” ? I propose that my statement about Nothingness is hard to understand If you do understand the question, then where is the essence of ” self, ” soul” or , in my example of a chair, ” chair ness” to be found? I propose it can’t be found because such an idea is an imaginary construct- all is paradoxically composed of Nothingness. How can it be otherwise?

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    The laws of thermodynamics specify that things cannot have always existed; they are not self-sustaining. So something had to have started everything at a point.

    I would suggest that “the essence of everything is nothingness” is contradictory on the surface and therefore cannot be true. Something can’t be “nothing” and “something” at the same time (unless the something IS nothing, which is obviously not the case.)

    Do you think there is any meaning or reason to life?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    Nothing is ever ” created”. It has always been I think. Take any object- a chair. Where is the ” chair ness” of it? Take a leg away. Is it still a chair? Take all legs away. Where is the essence of ” chair”? Same with an individual. Where is the so- called “essence” or self or soul? Take away certain parts. When are you no longer you? Where is the essence of you? Nowhere , because like all matter in the universe, we and every micro particle has ” nothing” as its essence. People give up and say there is an essence – a soul etc. but where is it? Where is the essence of any individual thing? The essence of everything is Nothingness. If not, show me otherwise. I can get more detailed” deeper” so to speak about this topic. But there is no need to. People give up and imagine all sorts of things to compensate for their ( our) lack of understanding.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    Yet if everything does exist, it had to come from someone or some thing. Since everything in the physical universe consists of space, time, and matter, and since these things couldn’t have created themselves, doesn’t it make sense that something greater than–outside of–those things must have created them? Something outside the ability of physical science to explain their beginning?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    I typed an answer but when I submitted it I got a reply something like ” you have previously posted same thing” or something to that extent. What I said was that I have no original ideas or theories as to how life began but when being asked where did everything ” come from” I explained that such a question has no validity to me because it’s assuming there was already ” something” ” someplace” and that of course doesn’t answer the question at all ie it’s a ” first cause” type of question that of course just leads to ” well where did That come from” etc. at one time it was thought a vacuum fluctuation caused matter to form out of nothingness but that is now challenged by the ” multiverse” theory. The math used is certainly elegant and I can’t do it but I appreciate the particle physicist’s desire to ” know” rather than ” believe”. I think the Heart Sutra best sums up what I wish I knew.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    So how would you begin to explain the finite perfection and intricacy of the universe, irreducible complexity of things, or that the study of bio-genesis negates the possibility of life coming from anything other than life?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    I have no theory about where everything ” came from”. Those words though, if taken literally, imply that there was Someting Someplace Else from which matter here appeared. So, I don’t think matter ” came from” someplace else. Particle physicists used to thing matter was the result of ” vacuum fluctuation”, that is , that matter came from Nothing. Theories about this are mathematically ” elegant” – ie they ” work”. The multiverse ( many universes) theory seems to being giving that school of thought a run for its money. I couldn’t have ever done the math not imagined the theoretical thought involved in such thinking, but I do pay attention to how much particles physics seems to mesh well with Buddhist thought. I would say “The Heart Sutra” comes as close to what I think is so that has been put into words.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Richard T–
    So do you have any theories as to where everything came from?

  • Richard Terrill says:

    I do wish to add that the person ( is it Jamie?) who runs ( I guess) this site is a polite, unthreatening person who tries to respond kindly to people who express disagreement s about belief in God. It’s certainly an improvement over ” bible thumper” types who immediately condemn disbelievers to ” hell” or some such place.

  • Richard Terrill says:

    James
    I am not the Richard whose comment is right before yours. I wrote explaining an experience one would probably deem ” spiritual” and noted that nowhere was there any God or higher power in the entire experience. I agree with what you stated, always remembering that it is not necessary to prove ” God” doesn’t exist. Rather , it is encumbant upon theists to prove God does exist. There is nothing to disprove. It’s like disproving or proving the world was created by frogs dropping ping pong balls upon the void. ie there is no reason to prove a ” first cause” etc ,as most people are familiar with the fallacies which arise using that argument. I respect most one who tries to make sense out of all this but has a bottom line of ” I don’t know”, after all irrational suppositions have been put forth.

  • James Smith says:

    This whole page was one big Argument from Ignorance just because we don’t know the answer to something does not mean a god did it.

  • Richard says:

    Thanks for the article, really makes you think that you there is so much more of what we can explain.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Terry, that’s correct, you will have to post your message in a comment box. It won’t work to reply to the email notification you received. You can copy the text you put in the email and paste it in the comment box at the bottom of this article. It will save you having to retype everything. I am looking forward to reading it.

  • Terrill Richard terry says:

    Dear Jamie.
    I wrote a rather detailed reply to your latest comment that I received in an email. When I tried to send it back to you it was returned as undeliverable. Does that mean all replies must be written here only? If so, I will have to write again. Suffice to say I think your reply was considerate and, again, sent in a spirit of kindness. RTTerrill

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Thanks Terry, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friends. I can see how those visions would have been a great comfort to you. So how do you make sense of the realm in which there is a continuation of our ‘Self’ after death? What connection do you think that realm has to our existence in this physical world? Do you think that is something that all humanity will experience?

  • Terrill, Richard "Terry" says:

    Dear Jamie,
    Thank you for requesting more information about ” spiritual experiences” I have had and how they have affected my life. When he was 33 years old my dear friend died from cancer. I was present at his bedside and at his death, which he faced with courage, and with not even a word passed between us regarding God or an afterlife , etc. ; we had, however, years earlier with youthful bravado imagined how we might ” confirm” an afterlife or possibly communicate from ” beyond the grave” ;we thought that the kitsch Hollywood movie ” Houdini” would be a good way ie do it on Halloween. Well, I awoke on November 1 – All Souls Day – with a dream fragment fresh in my mind – my friend faced me wearing a mask which was essentially a big nose like Alec Guiness wore as “Fagin” in ” Oliver Twist”. A bit later I thought of the ” language of dreams” and thought it indeed may have been a communication dream, because it was something the audience(me) surely ” knows”(nose). There was no such intellectualization the next time. About six months later without preamble I found myself facing a huge, blockbuster-built futuristicaly armed samurai at the bottom of ancient stone steps which I could see offered a circuitous path upward to a place to which I believed I should go. But how to get by the samurai? Looking more closely at the warrior, close enough to see determined, honor-bound dark eyes gleaming from within the strange ebony mask-like helmet, I suddenly realized the warrior was my friend’s mother. She looked straight down at me , nodded slightly, and stepped aside to allow me passage up the stone stairway. Perhaps during the vision’s time I saw and felt my way upward, but I have no recollection of that happening. When I reached the top there was a room where my friend sat on the edge of a large, recently made bed. He was smiling, and I knew why: he was smiling to let me know that, yes, this is remarkable, isn’t it? He was letting me know the experience was not ” just a dream,” and he knew I knew it too. He asked me to tell his wife he was ok. He didn’t go into details but I intuited that he was healing in preparation for something which was to happen later, but I didn’t know what that was or when it was to occur. I looked around the room and saw beautiful paintings on the walls and wondered who had made them. While I stood in a kind of continuing, welcoming , thrilling amazement, my friend suddenly thrust a hand mirror in front of my face. As I stared at it and saw no reflection, it seemed he was kindly telling me ,” Quit thinking about yourself so much”. But as I faded from the wondrous room, I felt more and more that I was the one saying those words to myself. When I awoke it was Easter morning.
    You also kindly asked me, Jamie, what effect this had upon me. ( I also years later had another communication like that with a friend who had also recently died. ). Well, I think about my first friend every day since he died. At the time of the experience I totally believed it confirmed that there is a continuation of our ” Self” after death. I also thought the similar experience I had a number of years later was ” real”. But I won’t know ” for certain” until I also die. I feel humbled and thankful to have experienced what I did, and I mainly think the experiences confirm how much I really miss my friends. Thank you again Jamie for the non- judgmental way you asked me to comment on my experience. Yours truly Richard Terry Terrill.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Thanks for adding your perspective Terry. Would you share what your spiritual experiences have been? How have they affected the way you live and the choices you make?

  • Terrill, Richard " Terry" says:

    A not very subtle attempt to try to give ” religious truth” ( superstition) equal footing with rational, scientific thought. Experience itself cannot be denied and even I – a person who finds the idea of ” God the father” purile and not really even worthy of comment – have had ” spiritual” experiences which I KNOW were true, yet in not one of these experiences was there a ” God” or any other sort of diety present.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Blake, thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts to the conversation here. Do you think that science is able to calculate and prove existential, moral, logical, historical, and experiential truth? I don’t think the author here is trying to discredit the value of scientific investigation, but rather is pointing to the fact that we know things are true that are not quantifiable through the scientific method. It is one thing to establish that a natural process is active consistently in the universe around us, but then to understand the moral implications of how we use that information and how we let it impact our lives, we require a different set of skills.

  • Blake Lanoza says:

    Christian apologetics at its finest. You’re beating me at thought so I’ going to rationalize what I believe by asking you how you know we aren’t brains in a jar. Say hi to Sye for me.

  • Aldo says:

    I agree that God, Who is the Creator of the universe, is its Sustainer as well. Nothing has happened to it, or will happen to it, apart from His Omniscient Providence. As for science, it is an emanation of that creation.

  • cersey jones says:

    an addition to the matter of life,God is the king of kings,God is the governer to the laws of nature is the one who created it their is no such thing as big bang which i disagree.

  • cersey jones says:

    Scott wade i would also contribute to your topic.scott God is the one who created the universe.you are saying that the universe was created by a theory called the (big bang) can you prove that.

  • Donald Darden says:

    There is much more that science cannot explain. I’ve read that the universe will eventually run down when there is a balance of energy everywhere. It is the flow of energy between contrasting high-low level points that results in all manner of changes over time. Once the energy is stablized throughout, the universe dies.

    The long view of the universe is that it is running down gradually, unless a new source of never-ending energy is discovered to revive it and keep it going. There has been no such discovery. although the exact nature of the universe is still under investigation by science and theorists, who often rely on very advanced mathematics to express what they conjecture the universe to be like at its very core.

    The problem is, science is founded on logic, observations, examination of evidence or facts, repeated testing, and the quantification and measurement of change, It has to establish relationships between cause and effects, which are defines as being natural laws or laws of nature.

    God is said or believed to be everywhere. Ergo, how do you observe or quantify God? You cannot separate him out from everything else, and the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God, warns that you cannot test him, and you will only know him by your faith in him. Those who accept science as the answer to their uncertainties need to realize that increasingly, science itself is having to accept on faith what the theorists are saying, because it does not have the means of testing the proposed theories directly. Thus, God, Jesus, even Good and Evil, are unprovable by the rules set forth by science.

    The Shroud of Torin is suppose to be evidence that Jesus existed. Even if science ever proves it did or did not come from the right time and place associated with Jesus’ re[prted death on the cross, that will not prove that Jesus was the body that is imaged on the cloth, that he ever lived, or that he was indeed the beloved Son of God. These are, and will remain, matters of faith alone.

    Want to know how weak science is? Contrary to the decay and eventual death of the universe, life as we know it involves growth of the individual, expansion of the species by breeding, a fight for substance and survival, and even sacrifice to keep the young alive or the whole intact. What is this life force that exists and behaves in this manner? Where did it come from? Science has no answer for these questions, although several branches of science are heavily involved in the study of life in all its shapes and forms. And what of the individual? We aren’t all alike by any means. Even insects have notable differences in terms of their roles and conduct.

    And there is something called interdependency or protocooperation, where two different species live together with interactions that benefit them both. Flowers and bees, or flowers and hummingbirds both do this, as the flowers provide food in exchange for its pollen (seed) being carried to other flowers to establish the next flower generation. The bee or hummingbird gets fed for its efforts.

    The flora in any mammal’s digestive track is another example of this interdependency. Eat something and the sheltered flora in the body breaks whatever is eatened down into nourishment for the body. Without the flora being present, the body would starve. Science can recognize such cases, but it could not anticipate them, nor can it explain how such cases came to be in the first place.

    If you don;t see the connection yet, here is a different situation. I saw this on a nature channel decades ago, so I don’t remember the names used, but I still have the details in mind, which is enough: A certain type of plant was often infested by a certain species of caterpillar, ehich would leave yellow spots on leaves where it left an egg to hatch and eat. The caterpillar would leave one egg per leaf, as the leaf would be consumed later by the hatchling. The plant would defend itself by creating similar yellow spots on its own leaves, which the caterpillar detected as it crawled about. If a leaf was already spotted (and emitted the right kind of chemical signature I assume), the caterpillar would pass it by and look for another leaf. Now run this through your mind for a minute: If you were a plant, would you think of doing that? Plants don’t think at all, right? So if this isn’t thinking, what is it? I realized that if much of this nappens in nature, then there is more to nature than I ever realized, It must be wrapped up somehow in whatever the life force is. And there are many such cases, as one species seeks dominance over another. Adaptability is a fundamental survival tactic, but that doesn’t explain where it comes from. To say it is all just part of the concept od “survival of the fittest” misses the point entirely. The plant had to work out somehow that faking a caterpillar egg was key to its survival, and that can’t be attributed to mere chance.

    I have to believe that there is a divine Creative Intelligence at the root of the life force, It’s more than coincidence or chance that we find all these things in nature. Look at yourself: Aren’t we all the assembly of billions of cells, none of which as an inkling or vision of ourselves as a whole? But we are each so much more than the sum of our separate parts. We have minds, we have feelings, we have involvements. We think, we learn, we act, we relate to others. If we can see that a cell to us is perhaps what we are with respect to God, then God could easily be the most supreme and mighty being possible. To me, God is all that, and more.

    Science is not the answer in terms of spiritual matters. For that you need God in your life. But we are too contemptable, too mired in our low sinful natures to meet God head on. We need Jesus as our way to salvation and forgiveness of our sins so that we become acceptable in God’s eyes.

    What is sin? It’s evil doing or evil thoughts. It’s disobedience to God’s commandments. It’s indifference to others, or a failure to act as God expects of the Righteous. Righteousness in God’s eyes is not simply right-doing as in the eyes of man. Man makes laws and rules for his convenience. To be righteous, you have to put God before everything else. I can’t manage to do that, because I am in no ways perfect. But God is a forgiving God, if you confess and repent of your sins, and ask forgiveness for those sins as well.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    I am glad you haven’t misunderstood my intentions Scott. There is one thing I would encourage you to consider: there is a dark side to knowledge. I don’t know if you are a Star Wars fan but just like there was a dark side to the force, knowledge can also be evil. Let your search for knowledge begin with seeking God; knowing Him, having a relationship with Him where He can guide you will lead to a pure and noble knowledge. Turning the order around, seeking knowledge so you can know God, could lead you down the wrong path.

  • Scott Wade says:

    Don’t take what I say so seriously. I don’t use emotions very much ,but shock is something I usually express. lol doctor thought I was bi-polar too. I think that makes me like Isaac Newton. He’s my favorite genius because we act a lot a like. However, I don’t think people like you would actually like spending time with a person like him.

    God compelled me to say one last thing.

    That’s is in regards to knowledge. It never suggested to use the bible.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Again, I am sorry Scott if it appears that I am being disingenuous with my comments. If there are specific issues that you would like to talk about I am open to that. Let me know what topics you would like to interact on.

    I will not be surprised at all that you will be talking with God. God does not hide Himself and is abundantly generous with His communication with us. So if you desire to hear from God and speak with Him I know He will be there to connect with you.

  • Scott Wade says:

    “how can it be a possible explanation” Sorry, I fixing to to rant about that for the next week to myself. Probably saying something like this “and that comes from a bunch of people that would say it comes from God”.

    No, you are cherry picking your comments and what comment you reply to. I will not have no more. When I’m genuinely trying to help you help me. That’s what it is all about.

    I’m not coming to church when I can bypass the middleman and talk with it directly. You all have faith and so do I. In fact my faith is so strong that I can indeed ” cast mountains” giving that if I am wrong I am going to hell. In retrospect you all aren’t putting nothing on the line. So, I say I have more faith than you so don’t be surprised when I’m talking with God.

    Cheers

    This will be my last comment. Feel free to message my Facebook account if you feel compelled to talk to me.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Scott, I am not trying to shame you, and I am sorry if my comments came across that way. I just wanted to point out that your statement that the Bible “comes from the people that invented the first written language and the reason for inventing written language was to write done the bible” does not reflect the evidence we have for the history of written languages nor does it reflect the evidence we have for the authorship and collection of the biblical documents. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be interested in seeing it.

    Your message seems to indicate that at one time you considered yourself a Christian. What changed that for you?

  • Scott Wade says:

    I am not sure how that can be a possible explanation of where the Bible comes from Scott, because it was written over a span of 1500 years. Some of the documents in the Bible were written as late as 90 AD.

    Really!? “how can it be a possible explanation”. I see you stopped using your brain for a second or it’s just a simple mistake but knowing I’m dealing with people that are partial to their own cause I know it’s not a mistake.

    You spend to much time in the Bible. Because anybody that has learned how to patent their own Idea will tell you I’m making a good guess in regards to my education on the subject (patent/inventing). You can either work with me or against me.

    I know myself enough to know that when people like you think it some sort of competition and go to try to shame me I tend to blow the !%*% up and thrash everything you let come out of your mouth. I’m not here for that so before I waste any more knowledge with closed minded people I’ll continue going about it the way I want to.

  • Scott Wade says:

    Well, Jamie that’s exactly why I pointed that out about the Bible. I can tell you this it’s better to say that than telling people it came from God which just makes you and everybody else look foolish for saying it. I know when I was a christian that’s what came to mind when I heard it.

    My goal is not to discredit you or your faith. My goal is the same as yours. I don’t expect people just to roll over and except what I am saying. In fact I expect the opposite. Oddly Christians have talked better to me than the atheist that claim to believe in science.

    I do at least thank you for at least not resorting to fighting like children by calling people names.

  • Sean says:

    If one practices a belief or disbelief, it is all done due to one being located at a distance from the truth, at that moment.

    Now, if one is located at a distance from the truth, this also means that one is located within the zone of less than truth. Therefore, if one sticks to one’s beliefs, this means that one has chosen to remain at a distance from the truth, and thus will forever remain within the zone of less than truth.

    In turn, a gap is maintained, between you, and the truth.

    Religion is designed such that the entire world can be, and will be, deceived.

    With religious people sticking to their beliefs, they all in turn keep themselves at a distance from the truth, and thus they all remain within their own specific corners, with there own specific religions. None of them are interested in proceeding towards the truth. Instead, the all remain stationery.

    Thus a huge gap is maintained between religious people and the truth, and this gap provides a Satan or Devil character with enormous room to work within, to deceive the whole world. This is a no fail system.

    As far as the truth goes, you can use your head to find it. Today’s physicists have chosen not to do that. Today’s physicists have chosen to keep science and religion separate, thus the outside of the universe, a.k.a. the religious afterlife side, is currently excluded from science. Thus today’s physicists can not understand things such as Particle/Wave duality, or action at a distance, or entangled pairs, etc. Yet all of these are simple to understand if you include the laws of physics of the outside of the universe, rather than just accept the laws of physics present on the inside.

    But like I said, as far as the truth goes, you can use your head to find it. For instance, anyone can discover what is known as Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity. If you passed grade 9, then you can do it. You just have to look at the truth concerning “motion”, and presto bingo, you soon independently derive all of the Special theory of Relativity equations, including the Lorentz Transformation equations. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKAwpEetJ-Q&list=PL3zkZRUI2IyBFAowlUivFbeBh-Mq7HdoQ

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Moody, your question is an important one. The more we are understanding about our universe the more likely it appears to be fined tuned by a super intelligence. The values of the 4 main forces governing the structure of the universe (Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear forces) to have been set within the first one millionth of a second. In order for the universe as we know it to exist, those forces could not deviate from what they are by a staggeringly small degree. The odds of those forces hitting that unbelievable sweet spot by mere chance is statistically impossible. More and more experts are recognizing that a super intelligence was active in the designing of our universe. Men like Fred Hoyle (the guy who coined the phrase “Big Bang”) said, “My atheism was greatly shaken by these developments” (quoted by Gregg Easterbrook) Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies wrote, “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming” (

      Cosmic Blueprint

    , p.203)

    The existence of life in our universe is also being revealed as more of an anomaly then we had previously presumed. Currently experts have identified over 200 factors vital for life to exist on a planet. If any one of those were missing, life on that planet would be impossible. The statical analysis of the known universe based on that understanding suggests that life in the universe is rare indeed. Peter Schenkel, a member of the Interplanetary Society, wrote, “In light of new findings and insights, we should quietly admit that the early estimates [of the number of planets capable of supporting life] may no longer be tenable.” (SETI Requires a Skeptical Reappraisal)

    So the fact that the universe exists, and that our planet is uniquely positioned for intelligent life, is pointing more and more people to the conclusion that an Almighty God has created us for a purpose. What conclusions would you draw from that evidence Moody?

  • Moody says:

    Hi Jamie,

    I noticed that origin of the universe was mentioned in this series of comments. You brought up that “we can deduce that the universe has a beginning” and it is an observation that has been supposed by multiple discipline of science. But how did you go from this scientific observation that the universe has a beginning to the concept of a anthropocentric creator? That what I would like to know.

  • Scott Wade says:

    And will say this one last thing for now. There has been nothing I have learned throughout my life that haven’t used to figure out God.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    I am not sure how that can be a possible explanation of where the Bible comes from Scott, because it was written over a span of 1500 years. Some of the documents in the Bible were written as late as 90 AD. Obviously there were other written works before this, so your explanation doesn’t seem to fit the evidence we have. Even the oldest documents in the Bible were written by Moses who lived around 1400-1500 BC. Some Egyptian hieroglyphics predate that by hundreds of years.

    I think the Bible is a perennial ‘Best Seller’ more because of its content then the fact that it is so old. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself; it tells us who He is and how we can have a relationship with Him. Since we were created to know God and enjoy Him fully, it makes sense that such a book would garner so much interest.

    Have you had opportunity to discover what God says about Himself in the Bible?

  • Scott Wade says:

    Since you like thinking about the subject as much as I do. You want to know were the Bible comes comes from? It comes from the people that invented the first written language and the reason for inventing written language was to write done the bible.

    It’s logical but I could show a lot of connections throughout history that can back that up. Why do you think it’s the all time world history best seller? Because it was the first book to be written. That’s pretty witty and I came to that realization from learning how to patent ideas. You start seeing the implication of someone having a monopoly on something like that and it makes total sense.

  • Scott Wade says:

    Are you suggesting that the Creator/Energy is not bound by the Laws of nature?

    No, I would say that it or they dictate themselves. Personally I’m not going to get into saying what the creator is about or if it can be talked to but I know its important enough to me to at least try. The reason I will not say what it’s about is because in order to do so we would need to be the creator. I will not speak on someone else’s behalf unless they ask.

    People are always saying that there is a code of some sort in the bible. If you think “God” is going to let you decrypt it with a computer, that’s sound laughable to me. I think I am onto something myself whether it’s kosher or not with tradition. What I’m trying to do is bring your faith and science together. So, far I think I’m doing pretty good job.

    That would mean he/she is not the Energy we see in our universe. That would also mean the observable properties of the energy we know in our universe cannot be applied to a Supernatural Energy. So how do know that Energy exists? How can you know anything about that Energy?

    There’s a good answer for every good question. You are going in a different direction than me. That’s obviously since you didn’t come up with the idea. If you want to know about all that stuff you have questions about then figure it out and I would suggest using science.

    I don’t like posting stuff like this out but it’s important that you understand I’m what people call a genius. Had a doctor run a test on me not that I was aware of it happening. I was talking to her because I was having trouble fitting in.

    Really, if I was trying to pull a fast one on someone for money or something of the like I would just write a book. Ha Ha Ha

    Let’s talk about spiritual awareness for a second. The difference between animals and spirits like us from what we understand would be to recognize ourselves in the mirror. Well 3 other “animals” can recognize themselves in the mirror too. A cat or a dog would think there’s another animal on the other side of it. Science proved that and you may not like that it doesn’t exactly fit in with your view, but it does prove we have a spirit.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    You are right Scott, everything within Nature must have a beginning. The laws of nature require that energy has a beginning. That means that something (I would suggest Someone) Created the energy of our universe, and is outside of the Laws of Nature and has no beginning. Are you suggesting that the Creator/Energy is not bound by the Laws of nature? That would mean he/she is not the Energy we see in our universe. That would also mean the observable properties of the energy we know in our universe cannot be applied to a Supernatural Energy. So how do know that Energy exists? How can you know anything about that Energy?

  • Scott Wade says:

    Jamie one mistake you are making is thinking it’s a he. The creator has no need for a gender. I see you’re trying to undermine what I am saying by suggesting that there is some thing that created energy like your God. Think about for a second it implies that your God had a source that it came from as well. The concept “beginning” is just that a concept that really can’t explain what we are really talking about.

    Although I do suspect that the second substance is what we humans think of as a gender. Energy being the male and the other substance being the female giving birth to everything or vice versa.

    When you express your desire to talk to our Creator via science, what are you envisioning?
    A conversation like this full of questions.

    I post my web address to my last message and I’m not seeing it so I’m thinking my web address is the reasons I’m not seeing it so I’m reiterating it again without the address.

    Thank you for your conversion Jamie I have truly enjoyed it.

Leave a Reply