Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
abel wrote:
The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html
and
I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.
abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.
This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.
What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.
This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.
We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
K
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abel wrote:
The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html
and
I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.
abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.
This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.
What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.
This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.
We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
Kenny wrote:
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
Philosophy does, why not "laws'?
Could you please enlighten as to how philosophy does?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
abel wrote:
The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html
and
I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.
abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.
This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.
What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.
This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.
We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
K
Philosophy does, why not "laws'?
Philosophy is not about nature; the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics is.
K
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abel wrote:
The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html
and
I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.
abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.
This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.
What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.
This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.
We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
K
What is your point? What makes you ask this based on the science behind the big bang?I think you are drifting into philosophy instead of science.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abel wrote:
The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html
and
I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.
abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.
This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.
What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.
This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.
We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.
How do you know these laws of thermodynamics applies to every inch of the Universe? What goes on in a black hole, and how do you know these laws applies there?
K
What is your point? What makes you ask this based on the science behind the big bang?I think you are drifting into philosophy instead of science.
My point is; just because something contradicts this law you mentioned, doesn't mean it could not have happened. There is so much about the Universe we just don't know.
K
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
What are you basing it on that something contradicting a law doesn't mean it couldn't have happened?I agree there is a lot we don't know about the universe but what we do know points to the God of the bible being the creator but this is ignored by the phrase" there is a lot we don't know about the universe" which is just speculation of what it might or might not reveal.
Again I see no reason to think its going to change because the science we know about now confirms the bible God's word true and shows that the holy books of other religions are wrong.I can't understand why you reject how the science we do know about confirms the bible true,in order to speculate or imagine some other idea as to how we got here.It seems like you're willing to ignore the evidence in order to speculate without evidence or confirmation,just a feeling.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you basing it on that something contradicting a law doesn't mean it couldn't have happened?I agree there is a lot we don't know about the universe but what we do know points to the God of the bible being the creator but this is ignored by the phrase" there is a lot we don't know about the universe" which is just speculation of what it might or might not reveal.
Again I see no reason to think its going to change because the science we know about now confirms the bible God's word true and shows that the holy books of other religions are wrong.I can't understand why you reject how the science we do know about confirms the bible true,in order to speculate or imagine some other idea as to how we got here.It seems like you're willing to ignore the evidence in order to speculate without evidence or confirmation,just a feeling.
You jokin' right?
K
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you basing it on that something contradicting a law doesn't mean it couldn't have happened?I agree there is a lot we don't know about the universe but what we do know points to the God of the bible being the creator but this is ignored by the phrase" there is a lot we don't know about the universe" which is just speculation of what it might or might not reveal.
Again I see no reason to think its going to change because the science we know about now confirms the bible God's word true and shows that the holy books of other religions are wrong.I can't understand why you reject how the science we do know about confirms the bible true,in order to speculate or imagine some other idea as to how we got here.It seems like you're willing to ignore the evidence in order to speculate without evidence or confirmation,just a feeling.
You jokin' right?
K
The points I have made have not changed.I have been making the same points and I stick behind them.The science we know about behind the big bang confirms the bible true.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you basing it on that something contradicting a law doesn't mean it couldn't have happened?I agree there is a lot we don't know about the universe but what we do know points to the God of the bible being the creator but this is ignored by the phrase" there is a lot we don't know about the universe" which is just speculation of what it might or might not reveal.
Again I see no reason to think its going to change because the science we know about now confirms the bible God's word true and shows that the holy books of other religions are wrong.I can't understand why you reject how the science we do know about confirms the bible true,in order to speculate or imagine some other idea as to how we got here.It seems like you're willing to ignore the evidence in order to speculate without evidence or confirmation,just a feeling.
You jokin' right?
K
The points I have made have not changed.I have been making the same points and I stick behind them.The science we know about behind the big bang confirms the bible true.
So if science points to your specific concept of God, why do most scientists dismiss your concept of God and remain atheists?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Ken, your assertion is incorrect, to a fairly substantial degree. Here's a couple of articles... Elaine Ecklund is an/the acknowledged expert on religious affairs within the scientific community. Her first link will establish her credentials and base summations... the second link carries the weight of a dozen or so 3-5 year research projects accumulating her data showing the split in the scientific community is marginal and that (surprisingly) soft sciences ( philosophy etc).,are more prone to atheisim than hard such as physics etc ... it's a good read.
Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence. -St Augustine
abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you basing it on that something contradicting a law doesn't mean it couldn't have happened?I agree there is a lot we don't know about the universe but what we do know points to the God of the bible being the creator but this is ignored by the phrase" there is a lot we don't know about the universe" which is just speculation of what it might or might not reveal.
Again I see no reason to think its going to change because the science we know about now confirms the bible God's word true and shows that the holy books of other religions are wrong.I can't understand why you reject how the science we do know about confirms the bible true,in order to speculate or imagine some other idea as to how we got here.It seems like you're willing to ignore the evidence in order to speculate without evidence or confirmation,just a feeling.
You jokin' right?
K
The points I have made have not changed.I have been making the same points and I stick behind them.The science we know about behind the big bang confirms the bible true.
So if science points to your specific concept of God, why do most scientists dismiss your concept of God and remain atheists?
Ken
Kenny because of pride. Eminent philosopher thomas nagle is an atheist and yet he is very sympathetic to the intelligent design movement. This seems like a very weird combo until you ask nagle why he is an atheist .
He said that despite the design implications we see in the universe and in DNA he remains an atheist because he wishes and hopes that there is no God because nagle claims he doesn't want to live in a world under a cosmic dictator as he calls him.
Most atheists aren't that honest but he is .
I just finished a debate with 3 atheists on another forum on Nde's as evidence for the soul and the afterlife , and despite the great scientific evidence from Nde's the atheist abandoned the direct nde research evidence and instead went with the opinions of neuroscientists that never conducted a peer reviewed nde study in their life . Why ? Because he is emotionally comfortable with his atheism, but he can no longer honestly claim that he is an atheist for scientific and emotional reasons .he knows better now .
It's all emotional
Ken, your assertion is incorrect, to a fairly substantial degree. Here's a couple of articles... Elaine Ecklund is an/the acknowledged expert on religious affairs within the scientific community. Her first link will establish her credentials and base summations... the second link carries the weight of a dozen or so 3-5 year research projects accumulating her data showing the split in the scientific community is marginal and that (surprisingly) soft sciences ( philosophy etc).,are more prone to atheisim than hard such as physics etc ... it's a good read.
I read over your articles and unless I missed it, I didn’t see anything that gave a percentage of the number of scientists who believe in the Christian God. Yeah they talked about scientists who have spiritual beliefs and all that, but this conversation is not about that; this conversation is not about those who might believe in Allah, Vinishu, or some other God either, we are talking specifically about the God of the Bible.
http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top ... -atheists/
In an attempt to be impartial about this,; above I’ve listed a Christian site that said 72% of scientists do not believe in a personal God who answers prayers and communicates with people, which means only 28% believes. (under survey vs reports section) Now when you take the other Gods who are claimed to do this out of the picture, and focus specifically on the Christian God which is what we are talking about, the percentage will be even less. How much less? I don’t know; But I’m sure whatever it is, it will probably be a pretty small number
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
read over your articles and unless I missed it, I didn’t see anything that gave a percentage of the number of scientists who believe in the Christian God. Yeah they talked about scientists who have spiritual beliefs and all that, but this conversation is not about that; this conversation is not about those who might believe in Allah, Vinishu, or some other God either, we are talking specifically about the God of the Bible.
You missed it. Here's the meat and potatoes... http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Eck ... s_54_2.pdf, also, from about page 294 on is where the statistical data is. You'll need to read it all the get full comprehension, as I did. It's not an admission to all scientists in academia are believers, but it absolutely challenges your
most scientists dismiss your concept of God and remain atheists?
Most aren't atheists ken. In fact many believe as did Einstein, that there may not be a personal God per se, but some greater force gave us the kick start needed, and it wasn't mother nature.
Einstein wrote: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
[/i]
Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence. -St Augustine
EssentialSacrifice wrote:You missed it. Here's the meat and potatoes... http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Eck ... s_54_2.pdf, also, from about page 294 on is where the statistical data is. You'll need to read it all the get full comprehension, as I did. It's not an admission to all scientists in academia are believers, but it absolutely challenges your "most scientists dismiss your concept of God and remain atheists?"
According to the list on pg 298, the percentage of scientists who identify as Christian; when adding up the various denominations, the total comes to approx 25% which seems in tune with the link I provided.
Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.EssentialSacrifice wrote:andabel wrote:
