Evidence for God from Science

MichelleAnn wrote:Hey I do not appreciate you all citing something that is not mine! I did not say:

"When science establishes a fact then it will necessarily be harmoneous with the Bible, because both are truth and there's only one truth. I think we may be starting to see this with the Big Bang... As for evolution I think science itself will kill the theory eventually, but we'll see."

Good Lord, try to keep things straight. You have all been arguing the wrong person.

That was Felgar, who quoted you in his response, and the editing on the follow-up were messed up.

So, AttentionKMartShoppers, you think that without Christopher Columbus' safe return we would believe that the earth is round? Or that without Galileo we would eventually come to know that WE revolve around the sun? And I have never claimed the Bible teaches that. You sure seem to be good at putting words into other's mouths.

However, I am saying that a geocentric universe was once a common belief that was upheld by the church at the time. As a matter of fact, Galileo was put on house arrest for the rest of this life for it and anyone who believed this was a heretic. There have been countless instances in history where scientific findings debunked popular thought.

Are you saying that scientific findings hold no value to you? (See how I ask you first instead of assuming? Works better that way...) I would think that is not the case, but it seems that many people only revere science when it is convenient to them... you know when they are on their death bed and someone comes along with a kidney, or when airbags inflate and save their lives in a car crash. Or simply enough, when you want to go on vacation or drive to work. Without scientific discoveries, these things would not be possible.

And you honestly think that before the Law of Gravity came around, people were thinking, "Hey I bet gravity is holding us here". No, it was explained by some supernatural force, just like all unknown things in history have been explained until a scientist comes around and discovers what is ACTUALLY happening.

And I have on question for Felgar: Why couldn't God have created the
Earth and watched everything evolve the way he hoped it would?

AttentionKMartShoppers, you think that without Christopher Columbus' safe return we would believe that the earth is round?

Uhhh...Greeks knew it for thousands of years, and the Bible teaches it...and nobody in Europe, (save for a few bad readers) thought the world was flat. So, whether Columbus sailed the ocean blue or served grits in a diner outside of Rome, we'd still know the earth was round

Or that without Galileo we would eventually come to know that WE revolve around the sun?

Can't be sure about this point...so, all I can say is look what a man who took the Bible to be the inerrant word of God could do.

And I have never claimed the Bible teaches that. You sure seem to be good at putting words into other's mouths.

Sorry about that, it's just that I've heard this lovely jargon put together so many times...first time someone didn't add "and the Bible teaches this as well"

However, I am saying that a geocentric universe was once a common belief that was upheld by the church at the time. As a matter of fact, Galileo was put on house arrest for the rest of this life for it and anyone who believed this was a heretic. There have been countless instances in history where scientific findings debunked popular thought.

That's why you don't allow the Catholic Church to take over the politics of an entire continent. And, are you sure it is? I mean, you're so confident that everyone believed the earth was flat....

And, it wasn't that the earth was viewed as the center of the universe-that's where Satan was believed to be...but as the bottom of the universe (Dante's Divine Comedy)-it was considered the cosmic sump.

Are you saying that scientific findings hold no value to you?

No.

(See how I ask you first instead of assuming? Works better that way...)

You'd be cynical if you were my position...but will try.

And you honestly think that before the Law of Gravity came around, people were thinking, "Hey I bet gravity is holding us here". No, it was explained by some supernatural force, just like all unknown things in history have been explained until a scientist comes around and discovers what is ACTUALLY happening.

Really...how funny...evidence? I think calling the majority of the people who have lived an idiot is rather mean. You seemed to have gotten a lot of junk in your cereal box. Sort out the mess please. You seem to believe in a lot of myths.

I would like for you to show me where I said the majority of the people who have lived is an idiot. Again, twisting words around to create an argument is a fallacy and should not be tolerated.

I also do not believe there is any reason to be cynical. That, in my opinion, is just a bad attitude. And to let me clarify, I am not saying you have a bad attitude!

Quote:
"That's why you don't allow the Catholic Church to take over the politics of an entire continent. And, are you sure it is? I mean, you're so confident that everyone believed the earth was flat...."

I don't know how to respond to this. I am not sure what you are talking about. Am I sure what is?

If I can give some advice, so that these conversations can remain civil and intellectual, I would really like to be treated as an individual. I don't care how many times you say you have heard whatever kind of "jargon", but please read my words carefully and do not assume anything.

What I meant was half the things you're saying I know are myths-so I was wondering how sure you still are that Galileo was under house arrest till his death...(since I can't remember what happenned to him...)

MichelleAnn wrote:And I have on question for Felgar: Why couldn't God have created the Earth and watched everything evolve the way he hoped it would?

I hope from my first post that my answer to the question of the value of scientific discovery would be apparent, so I'll refrain from answering that question esspecially since you asked KM directly.

Actually I don't believe that God could sit passively by and just watch what happens, because that would be contrary to His very nature which is unchanging. However, it's a moot point because I believe He DIDN'T do that, because we have numerous situations in which God directly intervenes with humanity. Not the least of which is the sacrificing His Son to pay the debt of our sin.

In order for you to understand this you really have to look at the other side; at the natural progression of faith from God's existance to Christianity. First we start with the fact there IS a God. From there, is the logical extension that a single supreme being is the very definition of right and wrong, good and evil. From there we reason that a loving creator would naturally share those values with His created beings. From there we accept the Bible as God's direct revelation to humanity. And from there absolutely everything else falls into place, because we have arrived at a foundation that is held as universal truth.

If you accept no god, then that progression makes no sense whatsoever. But if you accept that there must be a god, then the rest of the progression makes perfect sense in my mind. So for you we're stuck on God even existing, and for those of other religion we're stuck on the inherent nature of God and sin, and the plan for salvation.

What I am saying is: Why can't it be that what we perceive as scientific exploration or natural order, be God's hands in disguise? Couldn't it be that God actually wants us to evolve into beings that understand everything He has given us and to not take it for granted? I am not too familiar with the Bible, but I am pretty sure in Genesis the Bible states that God gave man domain over the animals (and the earth?? i am not sure). If this is true, why wouldn't he want us to discover everything we can about our existence here? If we truly are to be the care-takers of the earth, then why shouldn't we learn about our past mistakes and how to avoid them in the future? (I am thinking about the mass destruction we humans cause on this earth as far as land degradation, deforestation, increases in CO2, CFCs, etc).

Why can't scientific discoveries be all about his master plan?

I also have a problem with the Bible being regarded as the only work that should hold any value to people... that as you say, "a foundation that holds universal truth". I feel it is rude to other cultures... I am sure any Christian would not like it if they were told that the Qu'ran or the Torah were indeed the "way to salvation".

i am not sure). If this is true, why wouldn't he want us to discover everything we can about our existence here? If we truly are to be the care-takers of the earth, then why shouldn't we learn about our past mistakes and how to avoid them in the future? (I am thinking about the mass destruction we humans cause on this earth as far as land degradation, deforestation, increases in CO2, CFCs, etc).

Read the Privileged Planet-the authors basically talk about what you're talking about-how we are in fact in the best location (from many points of view) to delve into God's creation...but I don't know what this has to do with you calling ID not science.

Why can't scientific discoveries be all about his master plan?

It can. But (macro since I"ve had that trick played on me before) evolution isn't supported by science...I really must call non sequitor, I don't see how these statements flow smoothly into anything from anything...

I also have a problem with the Bible being regarded as the only work that should hold any value to people... that as you say, "a foundation that holds universal truth". I feel it is rude to other cultures... I am sure any Christian would not like it if they were told that the Qu'ran or the Torah were indeed the "way to salvation".

Haven't said that at all...but it should be held as a very valuable book. I mean, the many assumptions in science derive their source from the Bible-assumptions that no other religion could account for.

MichelleAnn wrote:What I am saying is: Why can't it be that what we perceive as scientific exploration or natural order, be God's hands in disguise? Couldn't it be that God actually wants us to evolve into beings that understand everything He has given us and to not take it for granted? I am not too familiar with the Bible, but I am pretty sure in Genesis the Bible states that God gave man domain over the animals (and the earth?? i am not sure). If this is true, why wouldn't he want us to discover everything we can about our existence here?

That's what I originally said: that our better understanding of God's creation can definately draw us closer to God. That's the gist of the banner at the top of the forum page; we certainly don't disagree on that.

As for the Bible and truth, again it stems from the inherent loving nature of God that at some level He would reveal Himself to us. So within the collective knowledge of humanity lies the truth; then at that point it's up to everyone to decide what that is. And quite simply for me, the Gospel of Christ is the most rational and consistent plan for humanity. Of course that's only the beginning for a Christian because then we develop a relationship with Jesus. If you flip back on these pages there was a thread about "How do you Christianity is the true religion?" and one poster said "I know Christianity is true because I know Jesus." Well said.

KMart:

Please be careful with your arguments and attacks on arguments. I haven't even mentioned intelligent design on this discussion, therefore your mention of it here is a fallacy. Try not to lose your head and feel the need to argue just anything so that you have something to argue about. I believe this forum was built for people to learn from each other, from all different walks of life. I have yet to learn anything from you because I am usually too busy attempting to rebut the abrasive comments you make. Could I ask you to please comment on something intelligable and provoke thought amongst the others who are looking to learn something? You obviously have a lot of passion in your beliefs and I think many people could share them if you would calm down a little to express them in a clear and appropriate fashion.

I have not been passionate and emotional and all that wonderful stuff...and the threads start to blend, thought this was on ID...oops. Just like you find it rude to call you an atheist...same with calling me passionate and emotional on here. Been a little aggressive, but not emotional/passionate.

Could I ask you to please comment on something intelligable and provoke thought amongst the others who are looking to learn something?

Age before beauty...ladies first...whichever you prefer

Why do I bother... AGAIN, can you quote me saying "you are passionate and emotional"? NO, so don't do it.

I am not really clear what you meant about the age before beauty stuff or the ladies first thing...

MichelleAnn wrote:Why do I bother... AGAIN, can you quote me saying "you are passionate and emotional"? NO, so don't do it.

I am not really clear what you meant about the age before beauty stuff or the ladies first thing...

Oh hippy crit. You claimed that I said that being a scientists precludes belief in God...but I never said that...now did I...and you said something about me having a lot of passion in my beliefs, and you're upset that I considered that to be accusing me of being passionate and emotional? I don't get you. Lol

And my ladies first thing was you're not doing the very thing you're telling me to do. Sheesh. And I have done what you've asked...a while ago. Sheeeeeeesssshhh.

General Relativity accounts only for one force: Gravity. That is an attractive force. Can relativity account for the forces that drove the big bang? What made the big bang go: Bang?

The only way relativity can account for expansion, accelerating or not, is the cosmological constant. There has to be something, which pushes against gravity (the only resident force of relativity). The concept of the arbitrary Cosmological constant is nothing more then filling up the relativistic balloon with Einstein's gas.