The existence of God conflicts with science.

C1): God is Necessary to Science Science, the pursuit of truth through the scientific method, is completely and utterly dependent on truth. Because of the human situation, there is "no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality." [1] Due to this, all that we can observe is all that we know. I promise you there are many things we do not know exist simply because we cannot observe them, yet. Our best evidence, even though it is our best evidence, may not really point to the truth. Here is an example: Ptolemy developed a theory called Geocentrism off of his best and most precise measurements of the universe. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but, in Ptolemy's time, all the evidence pointed to the "fact" that the universe revolves around earth. ALL the evidence pointed to this, until we gained a new way of acquiring information: the telescope. Galileo was able to offer evidence (for the first time) that the earth actually revolves around the sun. So, all science is dependent on truth, however, scientific evidence can point away from what is actually true, because science does not determine what is true. IF science does not determine what is true, then what does? Well an atheist would say there is no absolute truth, only reality and what is "experimental" truth. A theist (like me) would say, however, that there is absolute truth, and absolute truth is defined by God. SO, by definition, God cannot be in contradiction with science, no matter where the current scientific evidence is pointing, because current scientific evidence does not always point towards truth. C2): Science is not a criterion for God Following from my previous argument, science is not something that God needs to fit in to, because God controls what science is, not vice versa. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because God knows that even if science unequivocally proved the existence of God, it is not what is necessary to convince someone to follow him. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because people do not follow ideals because of any amount of science. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because science is not enough. So, God decided that there is no way to "scientifically" prove whether he exists or not, because it is not enough to change someone's heart. The only thing that can change a person's heart is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit accomplishes this outside of science. So, don't blame my God for your science's inability to prove his existence. C3): Rebuttals A. The Universe Never Began i. God is outside of time. My opponent argues that the universe never began, because time dilation proves that all time is existent simultaneously. However, that is in no way contradictory to the existence of God. Part A: God sees all time at once. According to my opponent: "An external observer would perceive all states of time." God can perceive all states of time at once. (1 John 3:19-20) God knows everything, including every choice that you will make. That may seem against free will if God already knows what actions you are going to perform. That leads me to point B: There are two types of knowledge. The first type of knowledge is to just know something. The second form is knowing where to find a piece of information. God has access to all knowledge, every secret, every yearning of your heart. And, God can contain all of this knowledge at the same time. However, he does not need to "remember" information, he just has to "remember" where he can get it. So, there is no contradiction between God knowing the future and free will, nor is there a contradiction between God and current scientific evidence. ii. No full conclusion. You do present evidence that says that 1. the definition of beginning, 2. particles can be entangled, 3. An outside observer sees a static environment 4. time dilation exists. However, these do not contradict because: B-theory does not say that the universe cannot be created (because if a person makes a pot, the pot comes into existence, but does not begin; creation and beginning are not the same thing); God exists everywhere inside the universe, and outside the universe (just as if you stick your hand in the pot, you exist in the universe of the pot, but you are still outside of the pot); God does see both a static and time-driven environment; and time dilation has nothing to do with the existence of God (also, time dilation can only move you forward in time at a greater or lesser rate, not backwards, that's why it is not called time travel). To put this in a syllogism: 1. Beginning requires time to flow in a static line. 2. B-theory does not allow for time to flow in a static line. 3. God created the universe 4. Creating does not mean beginning C. God can create the universe whether B-Theory is true or not. B. The Bible is Wrong i. Premise 3: The Bible teaches us about science in the time of Joshua. When talking about reality, Stephen Hawking says that "there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality." This means that what reality is, is all that we can sense. At the time Joshua 10:12-13 was written, the only sensible information pointed to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Therefore, Joshua's reality was only that which he possibly could have observed, and in that reality, the sun did revolve around the Earth. Don't hear this and believe that I'm saying that the Bible is not the words of God. See, God breathed does not mean God written. Every single exact word is not a specific word of God, such as when you take notes on a lecture, you don't write down exactly what your teacher states, you are just writing all of the main ideas, so that you are prepared for the test. So, the idea that God is trying to convey through Joshua is not that of a scientific fact, but that of an observation. If the earth stopped rotating, you would not say "Oh my! The earth has stopped rotating!" You would be much more prone to say "The sun looks like it hasn't moved in a while... (a bit later)... the sun has definitely not moved, because the shadows aren't moving... (even later)... all right, what's going on here, why isn't the sun moving?" because, from our perspective, the sun is what moves, and not the earth. Joshua really did ask God to stop the sun in its movement, because the Amorites worshipped the sun, and to see the sun obey God was really their god calling himself not god. So, in all practicality, the sun did stop moving, and the moon stopped. ii. I'm going to turn this argument, however, into something in my favor. Many cultures have myths about a day that was longer than all the rest (or a night for the Maya and Maori). For example, the Greeks have a myth about the sun chariot moving too close to the earth, and the day being longer than all the others. The Maya, however, have a story about a night that was longer than all the others. In these other religions, this was just a random event. In Judaism (and Christianity), this event has meaning, and has a purpose. So, all these other religions tell us that it happened, and the Bible tells us the real reason, because God made "The sun and moon [stand] still in their habitation." In conclusion, God is a necessary part of science, because he determines what science is. Also, God does not need to be scientifically provable, simply because it will have no effect. B-theory, which is supported by scientific evidence, does not conflict with the existence of God, because to create and to begin are not the same thing. Finally, the Bible is not wrong, because it is the pure and perfect word of a pure and perfect God, and there are no contradictions between what is true and what is taught in the Bible. [1] quote by Stephen Hawking