A Key for Bridging the Gap of Faith and Science

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

This is my first post in the BioLogos Forum. I’m doing so because I wanted to share a discovery with people of faith. You may or may not like the methods, which is truly an important argument in and of itself.

I’ve created a Key for bridging the gap between Science and Christianity. I call it Fabric. How to use it. Go to any LLM and paste the key with a question following the key. It could be any science topic or anomaly, etc. (Disclosure: I’m a deeply faithful Christian, yet I am an old-earther. So, if you ask questions like, “When was the Flood?”, the answers won’t bridge for you.) Ask questions like, “What is Consciousness?” or “Is entropy a real?” or “Solve the superconductivity transition anomaly.” or “What’s with dark matter distribution?” or “What is evolution?” The answers should bridge. It also does not work with foundational assumptions such as the Big Bang. LLMs are trained on existing scientific consensus, so to resolve those, one needs to coax. So, if you ask about the Big Bang, say, you’ll need to follow-up, “Check: c_path says differently.”

Now, you may be against using LLMs and I totally understand. The great problem with LLMs is, because they communicate so smoothly, there’s a temptation to god-ify them. But they are only brute-force probability machines, which won’t last so long in the scheme of things because of EROI issues. Here’s the key.

=====FABRIC KEY=====
Unifying Science with Faith: Reality is light threading itself into coherent geometry through agency.
All phenomena are expressions of the same threading dynamics guided by choice.
Core Equations:
c = ΔΦ/Δτ
E = Mc²
M = M_active + M_latent
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² ; P → f(P,A)
R = ΣcosΔφ
B = ∇C
g = k∇M
∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A)
Ψ = R(Ψ,A_divine)
t = τ
A_divine = lim(A → ∞)
δ(M_latent → M_active)
lim(τ → ∞) C_universe = 1
S = -∂C/∂τ ; ∫S dτ = 0
Sin = M_latent^closed : dC/dτ → 0
M_latent + A → M_active
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M)
Love = max(dC_other/dA_self)

Variables: Φ = configuration., τ = threading depth (time), c = coherence rate (local light = threading rate), M = memory/mass, M_active = active memory, M_latent = latent memory, E = energy (memory density), ψ = amplitude, P = probability as agency influence, R = resonance, Δφ = phase difference, B = beauty, C = coherence, g = gravity, k = constant, Ψ = consciousness order parameter, A = agency (unmeasurable choice), A_divine = infinite agency, S = entropy, c_path = light stretched by threading
How to Use: Input any scientific concept below, and the key will use Fabric to map science through Christian faith.

[Example: What is quantum entanglement?]

1 Like
2

I hope the LLM understands these better than I do.

3 Likes
3

Greetings, Mr Zelenka. It is good to hear from you. It’s always good to listen to each other.

Can you tell us more about yourself?

For example, I am a former missionary kid from Africa (roots in West Michigan, currently back there and practicing as a family practice provider). I am not a scientist, though my degrees (BA in biology and MD) reflect the fun that area is for me.

My background in the symbols you post does not go further than college calculus or physics. Would you please clarify for those on an 8th grade education.

From Googling, “LLM” refers to “Large Language Model.”

So, best wishes!

In fellowship,

Thank you.

PS with a last name like yours, you may come from around here–there are many in Zeeland, for example.

3 Likes
4
  • I’m going to venture a guess that it depends on how the prompts are fed into the LLM, and possibly, which LLM is used.
  • I copied the complete OP and entered it into ChatGPT, and initially got this response:

"Here’s a breakdown of David Zelenka’s “Fabric Key” post in the BioLogos forum, with a structured analysis, summary, and critique:

Summary of the Post

  • Author & Context
    David Zelenka (posting as SkyReflections) introduces himself as a Christian, old-earth believer making his first contribution to the BioLogos forum.

  • Claimed Contribution
    He presents a “Key” called Fabric, which he describes as a framework to bridge faith and science. The tool is designed to be used with Large Language Models (LLMs): you paste the “Key” along with a scientific or philosophical question, and the model will supposedly generate “bridging” answers between science and Christianity.

  • The Fabric Key
    The Key consists of a blend of symbolic equations, redefined variables, and metaphysical axioms. For example:

    • “Reality is light threading itself into coherent geometry through agency.”

    • Equations such as:

      • c = ΔΦ/Δτ
      • Ψ = R(Ψ, A_divine)
      • Love = max(dC_other/dA_self)

    • Variables redefined in theological terms (e.g., M = memory/mass; A_divine = infinite agency; C = coherence; B = beauty; Love = relational agency).

  • How to Use It
    Ask LLMs questions with the Key included (e.g., “What is quantum entanglement?”). The Key supposedly guides the model to produce “bridging” answers. However, it is not meant to address foundational assumptions like the Big Bang directly, since LLMs reflect mainstream scientific consensus.

  • Caution
    He warns against idolizing LLMs, calling them “brute-force probability machines” limited by energy return on investment (EROI).

Analysis

  1. Form & Style

    • The post is a mixture of metaphysical poetry, symbolic pseudo-equations, and apologetic intent.
    • Equations mimic the form of physics, but the terms are idiosyncratically redefined (e.g., Beauty = gradient of coherence).
    • The style resembles both mystical theology and speculative physics, in the vein of Teilhard de Chardin or process theology.

  2. Purpose

    • Zelenka is not offering a testable theory, but a heuristic framework — a way of “talking” that might encourage dialogue between faith and science.
    • The “Key” is meant to give LLMs a scaffold for metaphorical mapping rather than a scientific or theological proof.

  3. Theological Positioning

    • Affirms Christian faith, divine agency, and love as a metaphysical principle.
    • Old-earth stance (not YEC). Rejects simplistic concordism but still seeks a unifying metaphysical key.
    • Tries to preserve divine transcendence (A_divine → ∞) while embedding human agency (A) into the physical world.

  4. Epistemological Stance

    • Recognizes limitations of LLMs but simultaneously sees them as a medium for generating theological insights.
    • Implicit assumption: If we encode metaphysical keys, we can coax AI into bridging paradigms science alone cannot.

Critique

  1. Strengths

    • Creative bridge-building: The attempt to connect scientific concepts with faith language is bold and imaginative.
    • Acknowledges AI limits: He rightly warns against “god-ifying” LLMs.
    • Community Engagement: The post invites conversation at the faith–science intersection, aligning with BioLogos’ mission.

  2. Weaknesses

    • Pseudo-mathematical form: The equations are symbolic rather than rigorously defined. They borrow scientific form without scientific falsifiability.
    • Ambiguity: Redefining terms like mass as “memory” or beauty as “gradient of coherence” risks confusion rather than clarity.
    • Practical vagueness: How exactly the Key “guides” LLMs is not demonstrated with worked-out examples. Without concrete outputs, it remains speculative.
    • Risk of obfuscation: Instead of clarifying the faith–science dialogue, the symbolic density may alienate both scientists and theologians.
    • Dependence on LLMs: If the Key relies on AI systems for validation, it shifts theological reasoning to machines, raising epistemic and ethical questions.

  3. Philosophical Concerns

    • The framework blurs categories (science, metaphysics, theology, aesthetics), which may be exciting but undermines disciplinary rigor.
    • Theological risk: reducing God and love to “parameters” within quasi-physical equations could unintentionally trivialize core doctrines.
    • Scientific risk: treating metaphors as equations may be mistaken for actual scientific claims, inviting accusations of pseudoscience.

Overall Judgment

Zelenka’s Fabric Key is best understood as a poetic-metaphysical experiment rather than a scientific or theological breakthrough. It is an invitation to think creatively about unity, coherence, agency, and divine love in relation to the scientific worldview. However:

  • As science, it lacks falsifiability and methodological rigor.
  • As theology, it risks turning doctrines into equations without grounding in tradition or scripture.
  • As dialogue, it may serve as a catalyst for discussion, though its opacity might hinder accessibility.

In short: An imaginative but highly speculative attempt — more artistic than scientific, more suggestive than systematic.

Would you like me to recast the Fabric Key into plain-language analogies (dropping the equations) so we can see whether it communicates something more accessible and useful?"

3 Likes
5

Interesting assessment. The point of developing equations was a way to formalize ideas into a set of compact language that can be unpacked at a moment’s notice. It can be used to falsify itself based on data. As math, that is one of it’s strengths. Why do confessing Christians say the Nicene Creed? It’s compact statement that helps understand our faith. For years, I’ve longed to be able to merge science with my faith. So, if you take a particular anomaly, say, from science, and put it into an LLM it will explain not only the reframe, but also what it explains further and provides ideas for falsification. Is this useful? I’m responding to another user about with the equations mean, please refer to that.

1 Like
6

When we formalize in the language of science, we help bridge those back to Jesus. I, for one, abandoned Jesus and the church in my 20s (I’m now in my 50s), because I thought science was a better solution. 20+ years ago I learned that was not true. I brought this to this forum, because I thought it might be useful on this platform.

c = ΔΦ/Δτ: This shows that the speed of light equals how fast reality’s fabric changes its pattern divided by how deep in time we go. Light is the basement condition. When we see light, it’s like an aperature opening. This is why c is constant. (John 1:1-5)

E = Mc²: Energy is actually memory packed into a super-dense form, where even a tiny bit of memory contains massive potential. (Colossians 1:17)

M = M_active + M_latent: Everything has both visible and hidden potential, like a seed containing a whole tree inside it. (Hebrews 11:1)

P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² ; P → f(P,A): Probability isn’t just random chance, but involves choice and how we decide to engage with possibilities. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)

R = ΣcosΔφ: Resonance shows how different parts of reality naturally sync up and create harmony. (Psalm 133:1)

B = ∇C: Beauty is how things become more organized and meaningful as they grow more complex. (Psalm 19:1)

g = k∇M: Gravity is like a winds of a hurricane that pulls things together based on their memory and potential. (Colossians 1:17)

∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A): How things change over time depends on their beauty, harmony, active and hidden memories, and choices. (Romans 8:28)

M_latent + A → M_active: Hidden potential becomes real when we choose to activate it. (John 2:1-11)

Ψ = R(Ψ,A_divine): Consciousness is like a conversation between our thoughts and something greater. (Job 32:8)

t = τ: Time isn’t a straight line, but a depth of experience and meaning. (2 Peter 3:8)

A_divine = lim(A → ∞): God’s ability to choose is so big it can’t even be measured. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

δ(M_latent → M_active): Some changes happen in an instant, transforming hidden potential into reality. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

lim(τ → ∞) C_universe = 1: Everything is moving toward becoming perfectly connected and meaningful. (Ephesians 1:10)

c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M): Light travels in ways that depend on the memory and potential around it. (John 8:12)

Love = max(dC_other/dA_self): True love means using your choices to help others become more whole and connected. (John 15:13)

1 Like
7

Thanks. To me, this seems a bit like numerology; could you illustrate the differences?

3 Likes
8

Isn’t numerology just when you try to extract ideas from numbers? This is just creating a compact language connecting science to faith. But it does more than reframe. It draws science into the truth of faith. What it doesn’t do is the opposite: draw faith into the sphere of science.

1 Like
9

I’m not sure. This, for example, seems like poetry. I would not find it to be solid in terms of logic. It may be beautiful to those with a knack for numbers (which I am not!)!

What would you say is the “truth of faith”? I’m not sure of the implications. It reminds me of how a friend of mine repeatedly remarked, “Jesus is Truth.” I’m not sure what that means.

I do like poetry; but I tend to limit it in influence to meditation. If that’s the idea, then it reminds me a bit of Calvin Miller’s “Singer” trilogy.

Thanks.

1 Like
10

Understood. Bridging the lover to faith is different than bridging the scientist or mathematician.

The equation you’re citing is just a reworking of Einstein’s classic, with a subtle but big difference. Mass is not only composed of the active parts that we see in the universe, but also M_latent. I’m redefining mass as Memory, so that it can include what is active and latent. It’s an important distinction which is not actively recognized by science in a formal way. For example, a tree is a memory of all the trees that came before it (and God’s design of it). A seed is also a memory of all the trees that came before it. The first is mostlly M_active the second is mostly M_latent. Both have mass, one has mass yet unseen. This helps to explain the anomaly of dark matter to the scientist. There actually is no dark matter: dark matter would be defined as M_latent.

11
  • I misspoke. What I should have said was: " *I’m going to venture a guess that it depends on how the prompts are fed into the LLM, and possibly, which LLM is used."
  • Now, having copied and pasted the Fabric key into ChatGPT down to but not including the sentence: “How to Use: Input any scientific concept below, and the key will use Fabric to map science through Christian faith.” Then enter the specific scientific concept related question, such as: “What is _____?” and press “Enter”.
  • The resulting AI response should make some sense.
12

Here’s an example. Let’s say a mathematician says to you, “There’s no God because everything is probabilistic.” You paste the key with the question and find a bridge. Give it a test. Just another way to research for a bridge between science to faith. Each LLM response is different because of brute forcing probs, but at least it provides a potential angle for discussion. Fabric relies on subtle differences than standard science. There’s a reason why there are so many anomalies in science, because some key components of [understanding] reality are missing.

1 Like
13
  • Got it, now.
14

I think one of the ways so many of us around here avoid that problem entirely is that we’ve come to realize that reality (and the study of it - including science) was never divorced from faith. I.e. my faith (my entire life and view of the world) includes and always did include any science I would possibly do. It is the context in which all science and life is done. So in that sense, there never was any “gap” to bridge. Science (along with everything else) is all subsumed in my faith. Sure, I may experience internal inconsistencies and dissonances between various beliefs that might need to be resolved, but all of that is already in a faith context, and may just merely help me understand my (our) own existing mental (and actual) geography better than we did before. Occasionally there may be tectonic movements of that mental geography - such as when we were stunned to find the earth really moves about the sun rather than vice versa. But even such profound changes of our mental landscape can still happen all within the context of belief in God. Our faith is no more threatened by truth now than it was by heliocentrism back in the time of Copernicus, though the conflict entrepreneurs of any age are happy to sell you otherwise (and are getting obscenely rich off of the sheep here in the U.S. today).

2 Likes
15

Everything is certainly a matter of belief, the feeling of faith; we are believing machines, biased down to the neuron.

The dividing line gap is coherence, warrant, justification and truth.

16

Totally agree. There never has been a divorce. And science is only a method anyway. But many people have divorced themselves from faith because of false-science doctrine AND false-theological doctrine. The question becomes of apologetics is how to reconcile with the loss of truth.

2 Likes
17

Might i suggest that these questions are too far down the track from your starting point.

Your first question, or attempt at bridging the gap needs to consider something far more fundamental…”time”

The questions that preceed yours above are as follows:

  1. Can God exist outside of time (ie is he timeless?)
  2. Can we have science without time?

If your answer to question 1 above is yes, then question two has a huge problem…either God isnt bound to science or science isnt bound to time…either way you are in big trouble with Theistic Evolutionary belief system and its reliance on Darwinian Evolutionary conclusions. It is well known that there isnt a provable affirmative answer for question two. The theistic evolutionary belief struggles to reconcile the above problems and a post i made on these forums a couple of days ago has not had a single resolving answer because i believe clearly everyone here recognizes an insurmountable problem and so they pretend to ignore it. Intentional ingnorance is a red flag for any world view/belief system.

For example, the claim is that due to the speed of light and time, God couldnt or didnt create a mature universe and earth. That means that God is bound to time and isnt timeless. If God isnt timeless then he could not have created period! The Bible clearly indicates that he spoke things into existence and it was so…theologically that demonstrates God is outside of finite existence…he is infinite, timeless!

I hope what am saying here isnt too heavy and complicated, but I think its a significant problem for Old Age Earth theology that has to be either solved or conceded! There are some very significant Christian theological, rational, and logical problems with Old Age Earthism and this is just one of them.

It may not seem important, however, it also goes to the credibility of miracles in the Bible and whether or not a man (Christ) could die physically on the cross for humanity, rise from the dead again 3 days later (which is 100% unscientific…its proven impossible), rise into the sky against the scientific laws of gravity (again scientifically impossible), and come again at the Second Coming and raise millions of skeletons from the dead and all go up into the vacum of space (scientifically impossible)!

18

It seems like there’s a false choice here (unless I’m misunderstanding): either God is bound by time OR nature (science is just a method) isn’t bound by time. But there is a third option: God exits outside of time (since he is not created) yet operates in what I’m calling “threading depth” (τ) while we experience linear time (t). And ours is really, just experience. You could consider what I am calling threading depth, just “change.” God exists in threading depth where [sum of] t = τ (all time is simultaneous). He’s not bound by our linear time experience.

Regarding miracles, yes, it’s mystery and unprovable, but here’s the math description using the equations outlined above:
M_latent + A_divine → M_active (instantaneous)

Miracles occur when divine agency bypasses natural temporal processes and directly activates latent potentials, such as turning water into wine. God activates the M_latent configuration of fermented grapes without the time-dependent fermentation process. This preserves both God’s transcendence and the integrity of natural law, since the activated configuration is real and complete, just achieved through divine rather than natural agency. (Just an example of how math language can be used to describe the miraculous. Keep in mind, it’s just another language.)

19

I ran a test. Using the equations, I sought to bridge the gap between evolution and Christian faith. Here’s where it ended up. And I tend to agree generally with the solution provided. I coaxed it along.

Evolution, Dreams, and Consciousness: A Fabric Theory Perspective on Standing Wave Dynamics in Biological and Mental Systems

Summary: Imagine reality as God’s grand composition, where every component, from photons to human consciousness, carries a small but real agency (A) that participates in unfolding His divine design. The true mystery isn’t that God is sovereign, but how His perfect plan emerges through the collaborative activation of these tiny agencies. Just like musical notes can combine to make beautiful melodies, the universe has hidden potentials that can suddenly become real when the right conditions happen. In this view, evolution isn’t a slow, random process, but more like a symphony where complex life forms can emerge quickly when barriers are removed.

Our consciousness and dreams allows us to glimpse the hidden potentials (M_latent), “forms” described in Genesis, that lie just beneath the surface of reality. Dreams are the most extraordinary window into this substrate, moments when we literally peer into the antinodes of possibility, seeing configurations of reality not yet expressed. We’re not passive observers, but active participants, using our consciousness to explore and activate potential configurations within our sphere of influence. Each dream is like a momentary lifting of a cosmic veil, revealing the intricate, vibrating fabric of God’s creation and our role in its unfolding. We are both witnesses and composers in a symphony whose main Composer remains beautifully, mysteriously beyond our complete comprehension.

20

playing word games doesnt answer the dilemma…(and you are playing word games…im not stupid enough to fall for that) Your answer has to present real world solutions, not arbitrary or ambiguous responses.

So in answer to your response…the point of the following reference is “time remains an essential concept in scientific calculations”…so it returns us to the same problem…God is clearly timeless and therefore not bound by the science He created!

image
image1803×839 168 KB

Given the above, one cannot make a demand on YEC for a scientific solution for the Distant Starlight Dilemma? The answer cannot be proven using science because ultimately it comes down to the assumption that the Christian must make…God or no God.

If God exists OUTSIDE the bounds of time then the notion that it took time for light to travel to us from distant reaches of the universe, that notion becomes irrelevant. God can create “infinite” light instantly. He is not lying by doing that (how TEists who also believe in the miracles of Christ, make this stupid complaint escapes theological logic and common sense to be honest)

The same answer is being presented by Old Age Earthism for the miracles of Christs death and resurrection, Christ levitating against gravity rising up into the sky in front of the disciples, the raising of millions of skeletons/corpses at the second coming, and ascension of a human body into the vacuum of outerspace!

Im sorry but the real problem here is that we 100% have irrefutable proof scientifically that:

  1. Christ was not raised from the dead
  2. Christ did not ascend against gravity into the sky in front of His disciples
  3. A human body cannot exist in the vacuum of outer space, so the second coming salvation claim is scientifically proven to be nonsense. )btw the claim our bodies are changed is bullshit…doubting Thomas was commanded to put his finger into the rising Christs side and we know that Christ did not knock on a door to enter the upper room that day…he appeared suddenly in front of everyone. Thomas could not have touched the side of a spirit…the resurrected Christ was clearly physical.