One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Finally Science and religion may be becoming friends.
Page <<first <prev 6 of 46 next> last>>
Jun 5, 2016 19:15:16   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
bilordinary wrote:
Unanswerable questions, what before the beginning, is certainly hard to visualize using our linear system.


Until we can figure out how it all started(obviously we never will)it goes against all logic and common sense to deny a creator.Something that created all that we know has to be a god,there is no other plausible explanation.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 19:46:30   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Does it really help, to believe in that fiction/mythology??

My folks believe it. But they also believe in me.


They were correct about God.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:09:54   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
Nickolai wrote:
It's just as likely that the universe is just a laboratory experiment in a giant world certainly not a personal savior that listens to your prayers guides your destiny an has a plan for the lives of the approximately seven billion three hundred million human beings on earth


Then you disagree with many world astrophysicists. Until just a few days ago Dr Steven Hawkins was the atheist's buddy because he believed God was a myth. Now, after studying new data, he has changed his mind and says that undoubtedly intelligent design is responsible for the universe.

How is it that he was your genius "go to" guy until recently, but suddenly he is wrong?

Many atheists have changed their minds about God's existence after studying the compiled evidence. One has to be humble enough to admit that we are not the culmination of all there is. Once that occurs, seeing more clearly is possible.

I believe many atheists deny God because they resent being relegated to less than the absulute top of the ladder. Hawkins is making that transition. They say belief is a supreme being is too much of a stretch and too easy of an explanation. I say that believing that every piece of atomic and sub atomic matter, being in exactly the perfect atomic position to form all of existence, is far more of a stretch to believe than the intelligent design Hawkins now admits he sees.

Above all other life, God has favored man.

To me, that is a blessing, and an obligation.

Denying a thing in no way makes it less real.

Reply
 
 
Jun 5, 2016 20:19:22   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
Nickolai wrote:
It's just as likely that the universe is just a laboratory experiment in a giant world certainly not a personal savior that listens to your prayers guides your destiny an has a plan for the lives of the approximately seven billion three hundred million human beings on earth


You are incorrect. He doesn't guide one's destiny. You have a very immature concept at best.

God gave man free will to make his own choices. He then inspired the writing of the Holy Bible which set down a chronology of events leading to the arrival of His son Jesus Christ, who then instructed man as to how to live.

The Bible is the history and the guide.

The choice is man's.

As most atheists believe, you think you have a grasp of that which you deny.

You do not.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:25:01   #
Ike Loc: Minnesota Iron Range
 
Armageddun wrote:
As I see it,, those who are not only seeking to ban but slowly and surely are succeeding to ban any teaching, are those who believe in the "Theory" of evolution. I have no problem if both possibilities are allowed to be taught. There is no attempt by any sincere person to ban any truth or truths to be taught.

Banning any serious thought is a disservice to those who seek to be able to make choices that could determine the course of their lives. Truth be known, it could more dangerous for a person to teach something they don't believe in. It seems there may be a catch 22 on both sides.
As I see it,, those who are not only seeking to ba... (show quote)


Tell that to the Texas State Board of Education.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:35:16   #
Ike Loc: Minnesota Iron Range
 
Armageddun wrote:
Faith is not totally intangible, the biblical definition of faith: Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for. The EVIDENCE of things not seen.


And science is the evidence of things seen. We have increased the power and precision of our vision with microscopes to study the extremely small and nearby and telescopes to study the very large and very distant. We have developed instruments to allow us to "see" the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The recent evidence of gravity waves emitted by the collision of two black holes amazes me, as does the ingenuity at creating a sensor to detect them. When scientists don't understand something, they say so. I don't think anyone knows why our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. To say it is God's work is not a scientific explanation. I fully expect that some day, perhaps not in my lifetime, astrophysicists will be able to tie the force responsible for that expansion into the four forces we know about: electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:36:16   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
Nickolai wrote:
I got saved one time in a holy roller church and I prayed and prayed for God to reveal him self to me. The SOB has ignored me. It's been 71 years and I still haven't heard back


Did He really? Or is it that you don't listen?

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:41:41   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
Actually science is only applied to the natural environment. It has nothing to do with the supernatural as such has no ability to 'reveal' it. You are making assumptions about science that it has no ability to make.

If you read the article it was less about Science and more about anecdotal evidence, the beliefs of some scientists, that there was a divine force behind creation. No where did it show where science had reveled anything pertaining to god. In fact the very first sentence on page three is: "Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin." That's it in a nutshell. You can't infer a god when you have no knowledge about how something started and since you can't infer a god you certainly can't infer a god that is hands on in our daily lives. All of that is base purely by faith and if you need anecdotal evidence to support your beliefs than I would say you have very little faith to begin with...
Actually science is only applied to the natural en... (show quote)


How can you infer God does not exist when you have no evidence to support your beliefs?

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:44:10   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
Actually science is only applied to the natural environment. It has nothing to do with the supernatural as such has no ability to 'reveal' it. You are making assumptions about science that it has no ability to make.

If you read the article it was less about Science and more about anecdotal evidence, the beliefs of some scientists, that there was a divine force behind creation. No where did it show where science had reveled anything pertaining to god. In fact the very first sentence on page three is: "Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin." That's it in a nutshell. You can't infer a god when you have no knowledge about how something started and since you can't infer a god you certainly can't infer a god that is hands on in our daily lives. All of that is base purely by faith and if you need anecdotal evidence to support your beliefs than I would say you have very little faith to begin with...
Actually science is only applied to the natural en... (show quote)


I don't need anecdotal evidence to support my beliefs. You are the one requiring evidence. Not I.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:46:43   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
Armageddun wrote:
As I see it,, those who are not only seeking to ban but slowly and surely are succeeding to ban any teaching, are those who believe in the "Theory" of evolution. I have no problem if both possibilities are allowed to be taught. There is no attempt by any sincere person to ban any truth or truths to be taught.

Banning any serious thought is a disservice to those who seek to be able to make choices that could determine the course of their lives. Truth be known, it could more dangerous for a person to teach something they don't believe in. It seems there may be a catch 22 on both sides.
As I see it,, those who are not only seeking to ba... (show quote)


I have no problem with evolution. It, and everything, came from God.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:50:10   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
bilordinary wrote:
Maybe our concept of time is a stumbling block!


These issues are non sequiturs. How long was a biblical day? Why do so many people have to put the Bible into their understandings of what biblical terms mean?

A day to God could be a billion years to us.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:57:09   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
Some scientists have always given credence to god. Newton, Da Vinci, Darwin, and on an on all believed in a god. This is not something new nor is it anything special. That doesn't change the fact that nothing in science has 'revealed' a god. Both you and the article are talking about personal beliefs and nothing more...


Did you ever pause to reflect on the fact that since God gave man free will to choose, and choosing God pleases Him, that by allowing man to prove God's existence. ... the proof takes choice out of the equation? And that if choice is not available to man, God would be preventing that which He ordained?

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 20:58:19   #
waltmoreno
 
Docadhoc wrote:
These issues are non sequiturs. How long was a biblical day? Why do so many people have to put the Bible into their understandings of what biblical terms mean?

A day to God could be a billion years to us.


Actually 2nd Peter 3:8 tells us that a day with God is as a thousand years to man.

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 21:00:41   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
So you want the "Theory of Evolution" to be taught in Church?


Do you live in a closet? Evolution IS being taught in many churches. How else would their youth resist being taught to the contrary?

Reply
Jun 5, 2016 21:01:45   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
PeterS wrote:
What does anecdotal evidence have to do our concept of time?


Nothing. It's your hang.up.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 46 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: Keep Poking the Bear
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.