Message from @Koninos
Discord ID: 522814423111434254
cuz they believe that the universe was made by a god jizzing onto space
^
and that jizz made space pregnant
so yh
Despite last thursdayism there is still something called the omphalos hypothesis that tries to integrate science with creationism
last thursdayism is hte only religion that is 100% compatible with science
But the majority of theological components can exist with science because they don't address each other
ok
Now
Name a part of Christianity that is against science
and i will prove how it is compatible
You misunderstand
I support compatibility
The existence of God (Not compatible with *modern* scientific beliefs.).
Not true
True.
If you believe the christian god is incompatible with modern science
The vast majority of the modern scientists believe that the existence of god isn't true.
then you are not looking at the christian god
Also the majority of modern scientists whom this field of science is their specific field of study
Are agnostic
Eg they arent sure
But
The christian god lives outside space time and matter
All 3 are specific things
You cant have space
Without time or matter
Because when would you put it
and what would you put in it
You cant have time alone
God is inversely proven through philosophy due to empiricism
for obvious reasons
The christian god is omnipotent and omniscient
The vast majority of scientists aren't steadfast on God because he is not a scientific being
Science is of him
yes
Science is incompatible with religion’s distinctive method of knowing. Science is also incompatible with many of religion’s distinctive conclusions. Leaving goings-on in some supernatural realm aside, many religions claim to have knowledge of entities and events showing up in our world which ought to occasionally be experimentally confirmable by scientific method. Consider religious claims about divine creation of humans, miracles, faith healing, angelic visitations, demonic forces, etc. When scientifically investigated, science concludes that these claims lack merit, about as impressive as horoscopes, Big Foot, and ESP. Sophisticated theology quickly covers for religion by ad-hoc hypothesizing how science must be blind to these matters (hence we get transubstantiation, ectoplasm, God’s gene-tweaking, etc.) Very liberal religion wisely refrains from claims about matters that ought to be scientifically detectable and confirmable (that’s the privilege of broad accommodation). But when a religion continues to make anti-scientific claims, do not be surprised when science declares its incompatibility.
Copy pasting didn't work last time you tried it koninos
Who are you again?