29 Jan '15 01:32>1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI'm getting the impression that there's some confusion about terms in a number of the posts. A distinction should be drawn between empirical science and philosophy. Some of the questions people are saying science can't answer, such as "what is the meaning of life?" are more within philosophy's domain than science's. I'm also wondering what you mean by "the word of God".
[b]Sometimes questions can be misleading. They can reveal a misunderstanding of the truth, and essentially lead one away from it.
"Nor has Christianity offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about!"
It's not Christianity you should be listening to.
"So why not look at "science" in ...[text shortened]... an unsettling word in this context. Believing God isn't a guessing game. God's Word is true.[/b][/b]
If there is an empirical result, in other words an experiment which has been repeated enough times that we can be as certain as we are of anything that the result is true, which contradicts what is said to be the word of God, and God is infallible, then it isn't the word of God.
If a theory contradicts what is believed to be the word of God then there are three possibilities: the atheists are right, the consequences of this are simple and obvious and don't require further discussion; the second possibility is that the theory is wrong; and the third is that what was supposed to be the word of God wasn't or was misinterpreted or taken literally when it shouldn't have been.
In physics, in general, theories are not so much wrong as approximate. It's rare that a theory being superseded has metaphysical consequences, one case was the transition from classical to quantum mechanics. Something like the big bang model is based on the observation that the universe is expanding and extrapolating backwards. The observation is basically irrefutable, unless you want to argue with the Doppler effect. The theory that the universe started then is however up for grabs as there is no way of testing that statement. If the big bang theory is wrong it means that the universe pre-existed that dense stage and we live in some form of cyclic universe. A 6,000 year old universe is ruled out. Unless you are going to claim that it was created to look as if it appeared in a big bang.
If God exists then the word of God is infallible. This is not the same statement as the Bible being literally true, assuming by the "Word of God" you mean the Bible. If the Bible is contradicted by straightforward empirical evidence then the only conclusion, assuming God exists, is either that not all of the Bible is the Word of God or that it should not be read literally.