God vrs religion known as science

seekinghokmah said:
With all due respect, I think it is rather presumptuous to suggest how most scientists would react to such data unless you actually ARE most scientists. The point is clearly moot, however, given that God transcends physical reality and by definition is beyond scientific observation…a point most scientists have been trying to make all along. Science is not interested in proving OR disproving God, it is about observing what CAN be observed and working with the data to the best of our ability.
Can a Christian scientist honestly claim to be any less biased than a non Christian scientist just because their bias points a different direction? Until both sides of the argument choose to develop a bias for truth, regardless of whether it fits a given theory or interpretation, there will be little meeting of minds…and this is just as unproductive for either camp.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. The scientific method demands agnosticism within its own context. Assume nothing.
 
I believe science only further proves Gods existence but the non believers already do not want to think there is a God, therefore whatever they fine they try and use as evidence that he doesnt exist. For example, evolution..there is a possibility this is true because God made it happen, not because it was by chance. And thats exactly what the common theory of evolution implies right? That it was all by chance and coiencidence..impossible. If this all happened by coiencidence, and there would be alot more deformities and mishappens with lifes and bodies of beings. The chances of all that happening like it is said too is HIGHLY unlikely and I cant stress that enough. Now, we also got theories such as the big bang theory..once again, could be true if God made it happen! Most of these types of scientific theories imply CHANCE...not facts for the most part. Now obviously, the big bang theory implies that there was a ball of matter in the center of the universe before the universe is what it is today. Immense amounts of amino acids are said to have been clumped together..causing far too much heat and therefore resulting in an explosion that caused alot of other things to happen such as stars orbiting planets, planets orbiting the sun, etc. Im not exactly sure what the theory says about this but i am sure that it says this part, that it was from natural causes. Once again, the big bang theory says this happened by coiencidence and nobody can say thats not what it says because that is exactly what it says if you look at it and understand its concept or idea. The idea that this just happened to happen like that is absurd and the chances are ver very slim. Without an outside force to be at work to causes things such as the suns light bouncing off the moon to hit the earth, different parts of the earth spinning towards and away from the sun to have night and day, and the fact that we even have a sun or a moon shows that something made this happen...because if God wasnt there to make this happen, the universe would be in terrible shape. Get me?
 
EndTimeZSouljah said:
I believe science only further proves Gods existence but the non believers already do not want to think there is a God, therefore whatever they fine they try and use as evidence that he doesnt exist. For example, evolution..there is a possibility this is true because God made it happen, not because it was by chance. And thats exactly what the common theory of evolution implies right? That it was all by chance and coiencidence..impossible. If this all happened by coiencidence, and there would be alot more deformities and mishappens with lifes and bodies of beings. The chances of all that happening like it is said too is HIGHLY unlikely and I cant stress that enough. Now, we also got theories such as the big bang theory..once again, could be true if God made it happen! Most of these types of scientific theories imply CHANCE...not facts for the most part. Now obviously, the big bang theory implies that there was a ball of matter in the center of the universe before the universe is what it is today. Immense amounts of amino acids are said to have been clumped together..causing far too much heat and therefore resulting in an explosion that caused alot of other things to happen such as stars orbiting planets, planets orbiting the sun, etc. Im not exactly sure what the theory says about this but i am sure that it says this part, that it was from natural causes. Once again, the big bang theory says this happened by coiencidence and nobody can say thats not what it says because that is exactly what it says if you look at it and understand its concept or idea. The idea that this just happened to happen like that is absurd and the chances are ver very slim. Without an outside force to be at work to causes things such as the suns light bouncing off the moon to hit the earth, different parts of the earth spinning towards and away from the sun to have night and day, and the fact that we even have a sun or a moon shows that something made this happen...because if God wasnt there to make this happen, the universe would be in terrible shape. Get me?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I think you're getting your theories mixed up. The big bang theory suggests that all matter was condensed. We're talking about stuff that hasen't yet come together to form atoms. Therefore Amino Acids are right out of the picture. Amino Acids have to do with life. Not with the Big Bang Theory. But yes, I get what you're saying.
 
dashrendar88 said:
Science is one of the best systems we've got. Of course it can't hold a candle to faith, but without science, you'd probably be dead 5 times by now. So please don't knock it.
Click to expand...
I agree that the problem isnt science, it is in itself benign. The problem is with the scientific lobbiests that claim that anything cannot be tested by science, or mathematics, cannot be proven as fact. As far as science saving lives goes, its power is limited by God's intervention. Science on it's own cannot prolong life. Without God, there would not be science. Which is why the modernist mantra that a true scientist must be a true skeptic is so ironic.
 
carolinasteve said:
I agree that the problem isnt science, it is in itself benign. The problem is with the scientific lobbiests that claim that anything cannot be tested by science, or mathematics, cannot be proven as fact. As far as science saving lives goes, its power is limited by God's intervention. Science on it's own cannot prolong life. Without God, there would not be science. Which is why the modernist mantra that a true scientist must be a true skeptic is so ironic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. A scientist MUST be skeptical about everything in order to get results, let along good results. They must be constructivists instead of deconstructivists. That is, build up a theory from the ground up as opposed to start with a conclusion and find answers that fit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top