RE: Science is the Study of Natural Creation and is Not the Study of God
Hi @samanthajbarnes, Certain aspects of science are not measurable but theory. Quarks and Leptons have not been physically viewed, which scientists now say are the building blocks of everything and are smaller than an atom. It is also believed that there are particles that are even smaller, but completely unviewable.
Matters of the heart are measurable, by YOU. How you feel about others is your own measure, and for you and I those kinds of things are more real than tiny physical particles. Even though you can't physically see those "emotions," you know that they are there. Every choice we make has it's own scale. "Faith," is a lot the same. For an individual, decisions and actions can be measured on that scale. And from a subjective view, your faith, your likes and dislikes, and your beliefs can't be measured by others, but they are still very real.
The bible actually speaks a lot about this. Jesus even spoke of faith in measures. He healed a woman and told her that she had great faith. He asked a few others, "where is your faith?" The bible even uses scales to relay judgment, which shouldn't be too difficult for anyone to grasp or individually prove to ourselves because we do that as well. Here's one example in the book of Daniel.
Daniel 5:26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Daniel 5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
Daniel 5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
Theories don't come out of thin air, they come from hypothesis, research, experiments, results of those experiments, evaluations of those results, peer review.
Feelings can and do change which is part of the human experience.
Faith is the belief in things unseen. That deep down belief in eternal life kind of faith is based on feelings which are very real, indeed.
I think we are talking about apples and oranges here but, that is just my humble opinion.
"Hypothesis," means:
"A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
There's a lot of theory involved with science. Like the "Theory of evolution."
Which is among thousands, if not millions of others. All theories are debatable because they haven't been proven, and some are debatable even though science accepts those "theories," as being accurate.
The post really isn't about theories though. It's about, hopefully causing people to consider that there are things far beyond our understanding, and as the title says, God Himself is not creation but HE is the creator.
It's a division, as there are many people who see it the other way around.
Sometimes the only way to know that something is true is to seek it out for ourselves, sincerely.
We do live in a world full of wonders and I have come to a place where I am comfortable not having it all figured out. Science has its theories, people have their faith / beliefs and we can all learn from each other with open minds and hearts. I wish you the best on your journey to discovering the truth.
Agree with your assessment that "deception" is too harsh of a criticism regarding scientific errors and flaws. The inherent flaw of scientific reasoning is that the method is inductive in character, but the hypothesis/theory formulation (at least in the modern times) tends towards deductive in character.
Unlike mathematics, which is entirely fictional, the purpose of the tool we term "science" is to approximate and describe reality using observable factors. It may be that the OP is discontented with the modern trend of scientists proclaiming "theories" based mostly on deductive reasoning, upon what may or may not be a flawed premises/assumptions.
Concepts such as "parallel universe," "multiverse," "abiogenesis," and "macro-evolution" are deductive reasoning that can never be tested using scientific method. Furthermore, in the realm of quantum and theoretical physics, where the very act of observation skews results of the experiment, the limits of pure inductive methods can be appreciated.