Im not sure if I understand your point. Doesnt science in "creation" theories force people to stop using logic and just believe the theory as well? Even when I was in my agnostic youth I always felt the big bang theory had to many holes in it to even be considered a theory by scientific standards. As I mentioned before, from my point of view, it is not a creation theory but an evolution theory. As the former I feel its a ludicrous idea with no merit as the theory talks about the current form of the universe we know being created and relies on a past universe we know nothing about and just have to "believe in". The theory does not address the true creation of the universe where the first thing came into exsistance. As the latter it functions well as a hypothosis and may have some merit as an actual theory if testing could be done (I fail to see how it could be though).
The Big Bang is a theory that attempts to describe the events that occurred after the singularity. It doesn't describe how that singularity came to be. For a long time it was thought that we couldn't even attempt to.
That said, science has to my knowlege failed to explain a massive explosion like the big bang can create something as remarkable as the human mind, let alone basic things like planets or stars.
Theories of galaxy and star system formation are pretty well rounded. The math is painful and immense.
Your statement seems to imply that because everything is not perfectly understood, no further understanding whatsoever can be gained (considering how far theories of mind have developed).
That is false.
Still scientists tell people that they have to believe in it. To be a little cynical, its like religions of the past. Men in white robes wandered the lands talking about God and told people to believe because of this or that reason. Now we have men and women in white coats doing the same thing. Thats likely oversimplifying it but as I said thats if you want to be cynical
Here's the difference between science and religion.
I can describe for you, how to create a battery, force some wires, blow glass, empty it, and create a light bulb.
I can describe for you, how to lay out electrical circuits, how they are powered, what sorts of things you need to watch out for and how to create a reasonably efficient machine.
I can describe for you, how to efficiently irrigate, plant, and harvest a crop.
There's nothing faith based about it. Except that if you trust your observations, you will get results.
We could go out, build a big enough telescope, work out how doppler shifts work, what standard candles are and why, and then start mapping galaxies and their recession rates from each other. There's nothing that special about it - it's all observation and deduction. You can deny what we see, if that suits you, but that doesn't really help your case for persuading others.
@Veksied: Ok I misunderstood you before, I thought you were trying to place god into a strictly external or internal being when compared with the universe. To answer your question, the idea that I think works best when mixed with mythology and metaphysical thinking/themes is that god is not effected by entropy or perhaps is highly resistant to it. To try and give an example, think about magnistim and how steel is magnetic but gold is not. So I would think he is made up of a different "material" then we are, or at least when we are in our physical forms (read: Alive).
Be careful about just tossing traits at God.
Picture a base logic gate. An AND gate takes two inputs, and if they are both true, returns true. Otherwise, it returns false. Okay.
Information cannot be destroyed. It has to go somewhere. All we know, from the result, is whether or not both were true. What happened to the information?
Inside your computer, it turns to heat.
Just declaring God to be immune to entropy risks also declaring that God cannot make a decision or an observation.
Another explanation that comes to my mind, again Im mixing theoretical sciences and mythology here, is the idea of perhaps he is able to bleed off some amount of entropy into another realm of existance (hell perhaps?). Or in a similar idea, perhaps the entropy takes the form of "evil" souls because its currently in a weakened state which keeps the univrse alive. At the same time, that energy probably couldnt be continuially built up in hell (as per the laws of thermodynamics) so entropy also needs to bleed back into our world and creates more evil souls and the decay of time. The entire idea perpetuates a cycle similar to life. Yet another idea, also using the bleeding hypothosis, is that perhaps entropy (as an energy or force)is slowly used up as time continues
Any closed circuit that such a God forms with the Universe is something that we affect and thus could potentially take advantage of ourselves.
Entropy isn't good or evil, per se. But if you somehow manage to destroy it without recovering the information it represented, you are basically erasing a part of the past.
Picture a sponge in a still pool of water. Imagine it's a sentient sponge, and wants to get to the other side. The energy of the liquid water around it is plenty enough to make this easy - except that it is all (for the Sponge's purposes) effectively entropy - countless tiny molecules bouncing off of it in random directions, impossible to harness. They aren't evil, they aren't good, they simply are neither directed nor directable by the sponge.
Now in my mind science is a tool for mankind to understand how god made the universe work. I mean come on, objectivly, a being with enough experience, foresight, and power as God would create a living breathing world with laws so he wouldnt have to micromanage everything. The problem I see in this and other threads is people all to often take an anti-theist point of view as the atheists try as hard as they can to disprove anything even remotely religious. From my point of view elliquiy has a lot of scientific zealots (this is not the same as anti-theists) while the religious side who seems smaller (or at least has a smaller group who discusses things in P&R) is acctually pretty open to discussion of all types as long as things remain respectful. However I think scientific zealots and anti-theists have made that impossible over the last...probably year, maybe longer
Observe -> Hypothesize -> Test -> Repeat
I've mentioned before, that science cannot answer questions of goals or purpose. Science can tell you the most efficient means to get to a goal, science can help you find ways to avoid violating things that you consider to be unethical or immoral. Science can tell you the consequences of your actions, science can tell you through what processes a physical thing came to be.
Science cannot, and does not, tell you when or why to use a weapon. It can tell you what the results of action and inaction will be, but it is not there to make that decision for you. If your religion is your moral framework first and foremost, you won't have many problems, at least as far as science is concerned.
If, however, you are going to declare that the scientific method can't explain something, you are probably going to get back a rather incredulous response, from "So?" to "Yes, here.". It's what science does, science does a good job of it, and it's had the benefit of millions of people working in tandem for over a century. What there is to learn is immensely humbling, and I find what is being uncovered now to be incredibly exciting, personally.