...I am now atheist.

[ElementalDearWatson]

I would also like you to answer a question: can God beat science? Can God define science? The God of the Bible sure can.

All evidence points to religion being around for as long as modern humans have been (between 100,000 and 200,000 years).  The modern scientific method has been around for about 130-140 years.  In the former period our understanding of the world progressed very slowly.  In the latter period we have gone from not having electricity in people's homes to almost everybody carrying around a small, powerful computer in their pocket which can communicate directly with satellites launched into orbit with rockets which use the timing of atomic clocks and adjust those times with reference to both Special and General Relativity in order to pinpoint the location of that computer, almost anywhere on the surface of the planet.

If God truly can beat science, then why didn't he do so in the very long time that he had the opportunity?

[MasterofPun]

You misunderstand me when I use the word "beat". The God of the Bible is powerful enough to bypass and ignore science altogether if He pleases. That's what I meant. Do you have any complaint against such a case?

Also - we do not know of science's advances before the flood in that 1000 years or so. The Earth had only recently been corrupted - and I would not have been surprised if they had advanced beyond us. But that is completely irrelevant.

[ElementalDearWatson]

You misunderstand me when I use the word "beat". The God of the Bible is powerful enough to bypass and ignore science altogether if He pleases. That's what I meant. Do you have any complaint against such a case?

Yes I do.  That's the logical fallacy known as "special pleading".

Also - we do not know of science's advances before the flood in that 1000 years or so.

What we do know, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood.

[Naesala]

From wiki "Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard."

I think omnipotence and godhood are sufficient justification for being exempt from the laws of physics. Maybe you do not. Also, you may want to consider the following:

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam),hodj fallacy, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, and bad reasons fallacy

[Aves]

P1: The God of the Bible is omnipotent.
P2: Omnipotent beings can ignore the laws of physics.
C: The God of the Bible can ignore the laws of Physics.

Fine. I think we can all agree that by definition of 'omnipotent', an omnipotent being can ignore any and all rules of reality. However, I'd argue that it is impossible for you to prove the existence of an omnipotent being, because humans tend to want and use evidence when we want to prove something. How do you prove something to exist that by definition evidence cannot apply to? What EDW means is not that God cannot exist because of science; rather, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for something like God.

tl;dr it's possible for God to have orchestrated the events of the Bible (how sinister that sounds!) under a completely different set of physical laws-- even variable or random physical laws before changing our universe/reality to the way it currently exists and the thing we have currently modeled in science. However, we would have absolutely no way of supporting or proving this notion besides blind faith. If you use the Bible in your premises, and you cannot use evidence(as there is none, as far as we know-- further, there CANNOT BE ANY) then it becomes a circular argument-- The Bible is true. The Bible says God exists. Therefore God exists. As God exists, you should follow and believe in the Bible.

[OldTrees]

P2: Omnipotent beings can ignore the laws of physics.

I contest this premise. It relies on a faulty definition (or definition mismatch) of either Omnipotence or of the laws of physics.

You could be using the contradictory definition of Omnipotence "able to do anything including being unable to do anything"
You could be defining physics as "the rules that govern how reality works except for all these other rules we are arbitrarily excluding"

However the sophisticated definition of this is: "Rules can be used to describe how reality works. The accurate and complete set of rules covers everything possible in reality. If Omnipotent beings are possible, then their abilities are accurately and completely reflected in the accurate and complete set of rules describing reality."

This is of course why it is always possible that "Our understanding of physics is incomplete and things would behave completely differently if someone named 'Bvm' were trying them". It is also why such a special exception is treated with low confidence in the absence of further supporting evidence.

[Aves]

A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

That is what I meant by saying 'the laws of physics.'

While I'm sure your definition "the accurate and complete set of rules that cover everything possible in reality" is what we strive towards, it was not what I meant.

Edit: Ah, now I see where you're coming from-- when I used "I think we can all agree that by definition of 'omnipotent', an omnipotent being can ignore any and all rules of reality"-- to paraphrase, my definition of omnipotence would be something along the lines of "unrestricted by any means."

[OldTrees]

Edit: Ah, now I see where you're coming from-- when I used "I think we can all agree that by definition of 'omnipotent', an omnipotent being can ignore any and all rules of reality"-- to paraphrase, my definition of omnipotence would be something along the lines of "unrestricted by any means."

Ah. That is not ignoring any rules of reality for realities that have such beings in them. Just as having a master key does not violate the rules of reality for realities (like ours) with master keys in them.

Although the question becomes what evidence do we have for this reality being such a reality rather than any of the other kinds of reality that are consistent with what has been observed so far. (which segues into your point about circular reasoning)

[ElementalDearWatson]

From wiki "Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard."

I think omnipotence and godhood are sufficient justification for being exempt from the laws of physics.

That's not a justification, that's a re-statement of the faulty premise.  For it to be a justification, it would have to explain how and why God can be excepted.  Simply saying "because he's God" remains special pleading.

Maybe you do not. Also, you may want to consider the following:

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam),hodj fallacy, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, and bad reasons fallacy

I didn't say anything about anybody's conclusions.  The question asked was whether there were any objections to the idea that God can ignore science should he so choose, and I answered in the affirmative and explained the objection.  I have spoken only to why the argument is fallacious. 

[ElementalDearWatson]

Edit: Ah, now I see where you're coming from-- when I used "I think we can all agree that by definition of 'omnipotent', an omnipotent being can ignore any and all rules of reality"-- to paraphrase, my definition of omnipotence would be something along the lines of "unrestricted by any means."

You do start to come into problems when you define "omnipotent" like that, at least if you also characterise God as omniscient.  Because if God is truly omniscient - defined as knowing everything, including everything that is going to happen - then he must know how he will behave in the future.  And if he knows how he will behave in the future, then he has no ability to act any differently.  If, however, he can act however he wishes, then he cannot know how he will act or the future status of anything that he influences in any way.

[Aves]

Edit: Ah, now I see where you're coming from-- when I used "I think we can all agree that by definition of 'omnipotent', an omnipotent being can ignore any and all rules of reality"-- to paraphrase, my definition of omnipotence would be something along the lines of "unrestricted by any means."

You do start to come into problems when you define "omnipotent" like that, at least if you also characterise God as omniscient.  Because if God is truly omniscient - defined as knowing everything, including everything that is going to happen - then he must know how he will behave in the future.  And if he knows how he will behave in the future, then he has no ability to act any differently.  If, however, he can act however he wishes, then he cannot know how he will act or the future status of anything that he influences in any way.

Yeah, speaking of notions like 'absolute infinite power, unrestricted by anything, or omnipotence, omniscience, etc' will lead to interesting convoluted paradoxes-- I think this segues back into the whole deal about whether an omnipotent being could create a rock in a way such that he would be unable to lift it, or if God could create another God, or if God could destroy God. For this discussion, I am electing to pretend that the concept of absolute power doesn't lead down that road. I suppose we could go with a more limited definition of omnipotence, but I'm unable to think of one that I'd agree with that also characterizes 'God' in popular culture.

[ElementalDearWatson]

For this discussion, I am electing to pretend that the concept of absolute power doesn't lead down that road.

Which isn't really viable, if we're discussing something that is supposed to both exist and be logically consistent.