​God-rejectors: They have nothing – Science, reality and knowledge

The final part of this series will cover a subject which would seem, to many, to be the forte of atheists and those who reject God. There are too many instances in the state indoctrination system called “public education” (or in many other institutions of “education”),or in the media, or in personal interactions with work colleagues and strangers where they will raise scientific objections to God and the Torah. The conclusions of scientists and philosophers for the past centuries which conflict with either the descriptions of God, or the narrative recorded in the written Torah and the Jewish Bible will be held up as reasons why the Torah is fallacious and its God a fraud, an untenable hypothesis.

So in this part, it is claimed that the teachings of the Jewish Bible contradict observed reality and the findings of modern science. Because the plain words of Genesis contradict the process of universal and biological development described by scientists, God-rejectors cry foul, that the revelation of God goes against reality. How stupid does a worldwide flood sound? God made the world in seven days? Making humanity, one man and one woman from dust? Taking Israel out of Egypt with massive plagues? Splitting the “Red Sea?” Talking to humans? Miracles? Prophets and prophecy? Really? Hasn’t science raised us above this … this mythology? Isn’t even God himself an imaginary guy in the sky who is a crutch, a means to comfort oneself when real life hits?

Now for some of the things I’ve said above, I know from experience that even some of those versed in the Torah will be saying to themselves that these things don’t conflict with science if we interpret the Torah this way or that way. 

But before I even think of measuring what the Torah says against science, before I use science as the standard that the Jewish Bible must submit to, I need to know what science is in order to know whether it is the standard according to which we all must interpret life.

There are many examples and types of science. There’s physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, archaeology, etc. And they investigate the world in different ways. But what is science itself? If I were to do a search on the word, there would be as many answers as there are sources. But from what I can see it is where people use their perception, observation, reason, logic and creative imagination to investigate the natural world to build up models and theories about how the universe and its contents behave. It is fundamentally based on human perception and reasoning. It is fundamentally based on the person doing it.

It should also be said that science itself is a tool. It’s not a person or a human being. It is dead and does nothing without an intelligent user. It is extremely important to say this because, too many a time, people, even the Torah observant, say “science does this” and “science teaches us that” when it is not science, which is in fact a dumb, silent, powerless tool. It is the person using the science that does things, that teaches things. It is the fallacy of reification to make science out to be something personal when it is not.

OK. So, based on this, what exactly is science as a standard? If I’m gonna have to make sure that the revelation of the objective God, the true God, is correct, then is science a valid tool?

Science is limited by those who use it. Humans don’t have all knowledge. Humans are not all-seeing. Our place and position in the universe is smaller than dust and the range of our vision is a small slice of the entire spectrum of life, space and time. We are stuck in the here and now. Our knowledge and range of perception are limited. Because of this, we must make assumptions, unprovable starting points, things we can’t prove to be true but must accept to make investigation of this world possible. 

Because we don’t have all the evidence and all the facts, that means, necessarily, that the conclusions reached and the models created by scientists can only be tentative, held in doubt. Why? Because, as history shows, it just needs one piece of extra evidence that we didn’t have before to falsify a theory or model. It’s because of this that the models and theories of scientists can tell you what could have happened but not what actually happened.

We humans also have biases, agendas, are affected by culture, peer pressure, can be swayed by desire for power or money, such as funding for projects, etc. There are many factors that can affect individuals and groups. An atheist can be just as “religiously ardent” in his or her desire for there to be no God and interpret the world in that way as a God-fearer would in the opposite way.

So from the outset, the human use of science can not lead to the absolute truth about everything. Making useful things we are great at. Using this tool called science to manipulate our environment to our advantage makes it powerful in that way. We can use it to make our race seem powerful and intelligent. And science can lead to many highly probable models and stories.

But we humans can not go beyond our limits. Humans are not the source of truth or reality. 

It should also be stated that the humans using science are limited to what they experience. Whether it be the sort of science that needs observation and repeatable experiments or the sort of science that is a lot more theoretical, it gives its advocates and users more authority when it deals with what we can experience. Outside of human experience, it falls into speculation and it is much more prone to the other factors.

And then steps in the God-rejector.

Now let me stop here. Even before we get to the God-rejector, let me just get the lay of the land. Science is already not a tool for objective truth. It’s a tool for the useful and for the probable. But because the users of science are innately subjective and limited, because it needs untestable, unprovable assumptions to even work due to our limitations in knowledge and perception, then the rhetorical question comes to mind: how can the limited, tentative and subjective topple the objective and absolute? The question is rhetorical because the answer is inevitable: it cannot. 

Those who use science can only strictly produce probable and tentative models and stories, and that’s only when they’re dealing with things within human experience. Outside of that, distances we can’t directly interact with, sizes too big or small for human sense perception to adequately attain, eons of time when humans can never experience, when a person with science tries to speak on these areas, he’s squarely in the realm of belief and plausibility, but nowhere near truth.

And then steps in the God-rejector!

While this individual boisterously declares what is real or not, what is fact and what is not, what he knows for a fact, a person just needs to look at what his grasp on reality and knowledge rests on. Remember, for this person, there is no foundation of objective truth. Can I be more blunt? He has no foundation of truth! He has his personal perception, that tiny sliver of what he thinks he sees. He has his subjectivity and possibly a whole lot of faith in his own mental world of perception. But he has nothing else.

And it gets worse.

Normally, these days, the general idea amongst those who reject God is that our brains were cobbled together by a senseless, mindless (stupid) process which only had the primary “aim” of survival. I’m not sure how the mindless can have an aim. In fact, I’m quite sure that the process actually has no real aim. But anyway, I digress. 

So we have this chemical vat in our skulls that only acts in accordance with the laws of chemistry and physics which “miraculously” made it. When it generates a thought or thoughts, it is only a chemical reaction. It’s only a fizz. And tell me, what is true about a fizz?

So I have coca cola in one bottle and fizzy lemonade in another one. Is there any point in doing a meaningful intelligence test on these bottles? When I shake them and make them fizz, is one any truer than the other? When one person has a brain fizz and another has a different one, does it have anything to do with purpose and intelligence? Or is it just the way it is?

Please understand, when a God-rejector opens his mouth to use any knowledge claim, attempts to make a factual argument against God, he has already defeated himself. He has no knowledge to offer, only personal opinion and personal experience. He has no truth to give only subjectivity. When he attempts to use science, the tentative, to disprove the word of the absolute, … is there even any comparison? 

When the evolutionist opens his mouth to suggest an ecology and universe no human ever experienced, there is no truth only faith, faith in the unprovable axiom that natural laws and principles we experience now can be wound backwards like a clock with absolutely no “outside” (supernatural) interferences, faith that we know with such completeness the nature of the entire universe, that humans can simply use our minds and authoritatively imagine an entire history the vast majority of which we have neither experienced or tested, faith that the brain made up by a senseless process can unerringly make sense of it all. That’s not all the faith but some of it. 

Excuse me if I find such a faith to be infinitely greater than the supposed faith needed to “believe in” God.

When it comes to science, knowledge and truth/reality, the God-rejector is so out of his depth when he tries to tackle the God issue, it reminds me of when very young babies sadly die face down in an inch of water … except this time you’re throwing that young baby into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean screaming, “Swim, Forrest! Swim!”

And yet, at times, even I will balk. The God-rejector seems so confident. He says the world can’t naturally be flooded (yes, note the word “naturally”) and give 15 scientific quotes as to why it cannot happen. [Actually, normally, whether from God-rejectors or Torah observant people who accept the naturalistic fantasies of the God-rejector, I hardly get any decent evidence offered for their stories … but I can try to paint them in a good light, right?] The God-rejector has such pomp and push and also a following when he declares that a certain scientific “fact” (LOL!) discredits the whole Jewish Bible.

And yet, when I stop and consider what these claims actually rest on, I look again at these God-cursers and only see balloons, empty of substance yet able to produce a lot of hot air.

Looking back at this series about God-rejectors, I realise more and more the fact that I’ve written in the titles of these blogposts:


But I also realise that the one true God is more real than the world itself. He is needed to be the basis for knowledge, truth, reality, rationality and morality. He is the foundation for the whole world and the whole universe. 

To Him Alone belongs all praise, honour and worship! Can’t put nothing or no one before him!



  1. Hrvatski Noahid

    Today’s scientists are like the mad scientist Victor Frankenstein:

    “But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pore over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding places. They ascend into the heavens: they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.”

    “So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein–more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.”

    Yet Victor’s science brings about death and destruction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: