PeterS wrote:
I like number 2. That should blow Blade away...
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.
I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.
As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.
I definitely take issue with non-commandment III -
"The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.
As one scientist put it,
"The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.
Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.
The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.
To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.
Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert EinsteinAnd right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.
Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"
And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.
But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the
Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the UniverseThe New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.
Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.
Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.