“You cannot play chess with the rules of checkers. You can play, but what you will be playing will not be chess.”
Science is as ordered a process as the game of chess, and it likewise has very specific rules. The problem lies with those who believe that science *defines* the universe. It does not.
It is an abstract like mathematics. If a mathematician wrote a terribly complex equation to describe an apple, all he will have done is write an equation. He has not made an apple, nor has he even *defined* an apple. It is just one way of looking at the real thing that is an apple.
His equation may be terribly accurate, but waving it around and saying “This is an apple”, is incorrect.
The same thing applies to science. If you want to do a scientific experiment, you have to follow very precise rules. If you do so, all you have done is followed the rules of a scientific experiment. You have played a game of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
Napoleon Bonaparte used military units like chess pieces. He moved them like chess pieces on a chess board. The units themselves were even like the pieces in many ways. And like in a chess game, he outmaneuvered and defeated most of his opponents. But it was all an illusion.
His soldiers were real people, led by good leaders over real terrain in real weather and against a real enemy. And despite the surface appearance of a chess game, it was their individual actions that resulted in winning or losing, not anything to do with chess. Chess just made it easier to understand on paper.
But after Napoleon, for many years, modern militaries around the world studied chess intently, thinking they could replicate Napoleon’s success by learning how to fight by those rules.
The same situation applies to science. Scientists do experiments, then both scientists and non-scientists extrapolate from their experiments to the world as a whole. And often it works. So much so that people are often fooled into believing that science *defines* the universe, not that it is just a description of the universe. So they assume a lot of things about science that it isn’t.
Enter Creation Science. It is not science. It is not scientific. But it believes that science defines the universe. It is playing a game on a chess board with chess pieces, but checkers rules.
There is no role for God in chess. At no point during the game does one side lose his queen because God decrees it in the rules according to Hoyle. God might indeed influence a player to lose his queen, but it is not officially part of the game.
The same with science. God is not in the rules of science. In fact if God were to noticeably involve Himself with an experiment, it would invalidate it, and it would no longer be science.
And while a goodly number of scientists are indeed atheists, any good scientist should also refrain from injecting God into any part of science. Or else it isn’t science.
Much the same as invoking God, to change the rules at a chess tournament, will not be accepted. Atheist chess players or not, it will not be tolerated. Players may still be free to thank God for winning after the fact, but at no time is God allowed as an official part of play.
All of this points to science instruction. To be fair, science education must teach two things: that science has rules to *be* scientific; and that science just describes the universe, it does not define the universe. Therefore God remains in his church, but not in the lab, and not in the classroom. And science remains in the lab and the classroom, but only has the sway in the rest of the world as men see fit to give it.
Trying to prove the existence of God with the rules of science is self-defeating. Queen to King 4 checkmate also does not prove the existence of God.
*** God is not in the rules of science. ****
Historically speaking, it was the belief that God existed and He had rules, and by observing those rules, mankind could grow in his understanding of the world around him and the God that created him. Therefore,
*** God created the rules of science. ***
This expanding base of observations became Western Science. The most powerful science of all the cultures of the earth. These rules will work whether you believe in Him or not. He is their author. And He knows more about them than we do. In fact, I find it most elegant that these rules work regardless of your faith in Him or not. It allows faith to be supreme. Reason is good, but faith is better.
Another flaw in the atheist-evolutionist arguments is when they speak from ‘science’ as their podium (which I honestly do not know or describe you as such) and they use that as a tool to deny or exclude existence of god, and then 'existence' as described before their courtroom by their rules on their ever morphing playing field yada yada yada.
He who has no name Yehova , अनन्त, अनंत, अनन्ता, अनंता or infinite names, all things come from him (all eternity’s, life, consciousness, etc), but ‘he’ is beyond all concepts and vision of existence, and ‘he’ has no need to be proved. certain verities are. God will not appear in the witness stand before them. God is in Man's heart/or not by the choice of the man/woman, that is where the drama is played out before God.
These arguments become all just little games that man plays out in his time on this little mudball swirling around in space. What happens here in his beyond infinite consciousness is like as an electron which has been split into smaller sub-atomic particles, and the earth being one of those.
A man can reject him, be blind to him, or seek him. If he rejects him, he can so with as much vigor and intellect as he might seek him. I think the smartest wisest men will seek him.
Queen to King 4 checkmate also does not prove the existence of God.
Queen to King 4 checkmate proves your existence and consciousness and they do not know from where it comes. They reject god, so they look elsewhere and they see it in a mythical puddle or sea that becomes alive on its own will, then later they see it in an imagined apelike ancestor. And if they repeat the myth well enough, they are rewarded, here and after.