Religion should accept all truthful laws discovered by science

1. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   All scientific truthful laws discovered by science are to be accepted by Religion as they are derived from the nature or the universe- the Work of the Creator-God; it is not that nature is run by the science or scientific laws; but that the science has attuned with nature- the Work of the Creator-God.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Negative.  An observer of science would know that even scientific breakthroughs and discoveries are always changing and being modified.  New theories are developed which lead to further truths.  Most all science is a matter of personal interpretation just like religious beliefs.  To be at peace one must foster the foundation of faith right along with the open mind to new science information.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The reason for new theories is because objectivity testing is done, so as to ensure consistency. This opens new discoveries.
         This is inaccurate. Science is not open to subjectivity, because it requires objectivity. It isn't a belief, it is a test idea that is formulated and confirmed to be true. Beliefs are not confirmed in any manner of speaking.
         This I would agree with, because faith is a requirement for living.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well, that's one point then that we can agree on.  Cheers for New Year's!   I see your point though.  We just approach it differently.  For instance there are some scientific facts that I am able to justify with my faith though common Christianity won't advocate it.  It takes a broader view of both science and faith in order to see how the two work in concert.  This would include the science realms of carbon dating, antimatter and many other areas.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I'm sure my version of "faith" is probably not yours, But I'll leave it at that. Have a good holidays and be safe Goldenpath.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  goldenpathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You to!  I'll tone down on the egg nogg.  After all, someone's got to drive..

                  replyreport
            2. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with your above words.

               replyreport
         2. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I also agree with it.

            replyreport
         3. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes; but my point is that the results of the tests of science are ultimately verified with the laws of nature already in existence; so the nature is ultimate master of the science as it is set on a system by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Nice conjecture Paar.

               replyreport
      2. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What is negative in my post? Please elaborate.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think he meant no when he said negative? I could be wrong?

            replyreport
      3. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with it.

         replyreport
   2. 63

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!!  Good point Paar!

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As far as I know they do

      replyreport
2. 61

   hanging outposted 13 years ago

   what i love about this question is that it allows me to share this.
   
   the laws of motion.
   we all know the laws of motion are dependant upon another law of motion. The billiard ball effect. The amount of speed and distance a billiard ball will roll depends on the force behind the billiard ball.
   But what caused the billiard ball to move at all?
   
   The laws of motion tell us what will happen AFTER the billiard ball is stricken but the laws of motion will not move an inert anything at anytime because they are powerless to do so.
   
   If we consider the universe to have fumbled itself into place because of the big bang THEORY and everything settled according to the gravity that grabbed it first that is fine, but with everything there is eventually a settling activity where the motion or force runs out of steam and things stop.
   Has the universe stopped? No. Does it all follow the same motion? NO.
   
   hence, my toilet will not flush itself i have to push the lever

   replyreport
   1. 79

      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure what your point is? How do you mean stop? Because it appears to not be moving? Apparently the expanding universe expands because of the empty space. So with regards to the empty space is that stopped or.. just appears that way?

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What I have understood from hanging out is that in the empty space there will be no friction; so the things one started moving should be moving with the same speed as it started with the Big Bang; while the things have to settle down at some point in time; but why?
         
         I am an ordinary man; I will request those who are science people to explain it in a very simple and natural way; the nature is very simple and beautiful!

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps with our limited perception it only appears to have settled down. Empty looks empty to us but it might just be actually full.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Full of what?

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Everything and nothing. Pure potential.

                  replyreport
         2. 88

            Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The Universe is still expanding from the big bang, but not at its original speed, because there is a retarding force of gravity trying to pull everything back to the gravitational centre of mass of the Universe, (which is the site of the original big bang).
            
            Hope that helps?

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You mean all the mass did not explode and spread outward; most of it is still in the cente of the Big Bang pulling the expanding universe backward?
               
               Thanks and regards

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No. The centre of mass of a football is right at the centre of the ball, even though there's nothing there but air. The mass is all in the plastic.
                  
                  When something explodes, the mass flies in all directions equally, so the centre of mass doesn't move.

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Is the gravitational pull of the mass or not? If it is of the mass, then it should spread with the mass when exploded; and if the centre is empty after the explosion, it should have no more any gravitational pull.
                     
                     Thanks and regards

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Think of it this way. Every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece, by gravity. If I am somewhere near the edge of the universe, I'm being 'pulled' in every direction by the gravitational attraction of everything else in the universe. But the net resultant of these billions of attractive forces is always towards the centre of mass of the whole universe. This is easily proved by calculus, but not quite so easy to prove in simple words.

                        replyreport
                        1. 51

                           paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Thanks

                           replyreport
               2. 58

                  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  There is no such thing as the "center of the Big Bang" - every point in the universe can be considered the center if you wish, but this holds no meaning whatsoever, obviously.

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks

                     replyreport
   2. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with it.
      
      What do the Scientists tell us about this phenomenon? Please

      replyreport
   3. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you.
      Here comes in the religion;and tells us that the Big Bang started by the words "to be" from the Creator-God Allah YHWH and the universe and the life started evolving.
      Science does not explain it, exactly.

      replyreport
   4. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How would the Atheists explain this phenomenon? Please

      replyreport
   5. 61

      ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The Force from whatever struck the billiard ball caused it to roll in motion.  The Laws of Motion Specifically state that there is no Force required to keep that ball in motion. The Laws of motion absolutely tell you what will happen to the ball before it is struck, because the ball has mass, and so does whatever struck it.  What you are referring to is an elastic collision.  We can predict what will happen to that billiard ball based on whatever we decide to hit it with.
      
      An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside unbalanced force.
      
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html

      replyreport
      1. 79

         pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Predicted only if your aim is correct!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I guess I should have mentioned the angle of incidence plays a big part also, provided you put no "English" or hop on the ball.

            replyreport
3. 60

   kessposted 13 years ago

   The truth is neither of the two understands Truth, if they did they would not exist.
   
   So how can they reconcile their differences

   replyreport
4. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Religion, mysticism should just simply die out. No need for it to accept science.
   
   Science is the exploration of reality. It discovers different things of reality, so people can learn what's real and what's not, and understand the difference.
   
   Just a thought.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your above words.

      replyreport
5. 58

   exorterposted 13 years ago

   I have never seen religion not believe scientific facts, religion does not argue, people do

   replyreport
6. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   OK; the Religious people should accept all truthful laws discovered by science as they only tend to repeat what the nature is already working on since the Creator-God commanded the Universe and the life in it with the words "to be" and it started evolving.

   replyreport
7. 60

   SpanStarposted 13 years ago

   Can't go along with this ideology.  It would be foolish indeed to blindly accept that which has been discovered by mankind.  The discoveries are interpretations by people and I can't tell you how many times mankind has gotten them wrong before they get it right.
   
   The people years ago in the Salem Witch hunts actually believed they were correct in torturing innocent people because they truly believe in things like witches and in more modern times people believed that people were superior and inferior based on their brain size.
   
   No.. you won't find me believing in the discovery of mankind simple because they say this is the way it has to be.

   replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Why is it that there lies an uncanny agenda by non-believers to not only disprove christianity to themselves but also to those who do believe. If you don't want to believe in a god........fine! don't!  But it interests me that you don't want others to believe ! And that for some unknown reason , you have to state you're disapproal of others. ? Any Answers for  this? Or is it plain and simple envy .

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to say that it stems from the selfish position of believing in a god. Christianity doctrine tells one to be selfless and since it isn't defined on "how"- it turns people selfish. It's an automatic process dictated by human nature.
      
      If there are more selfish people in the world then the world will not improve, but only get worse.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That sounds kind of lame , I'll have to read it again.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It sounds lame? Selfish people destroy things more than anything else. How is this lame? It's proven that selfish people do in fact ruin their own life. And, it's unfortunate when that happens, because then it hurts those who are connected to them as well.

            replyreport
   2. 79

      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps one believes it is their duty to inform the (in their eyes) uninformed. It is human conditioning to believe "my" way is the "right" way and any other way is wrong.
      
      We all see and understand things differently. Having an open mind and realizing that we actually do no know a lot might prevent us from trying to disprove anothers belief and look more to understanding them.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Like the religionists the Atheists also want as pennyofheaven has rightly pointed out "my" way is the "right" way and any other way is wrong.
         
         Man being social; even the Atheists think it is their moral duty not only to inform the "uninformed", in their eyes, but to insist to join their band wagon, very religiously.
         
         The Atheists, please!

         replyreport
   3. 60

      SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ahorseback,
      
         I'm sure if your comments are directed to me but if they are then let me say my comments are not that of a non-believer but in fact a believer.  The question presented ask about believers believing in things of science and my position is that science is the interpretation of man who doesn't always get things right.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         I agree with you.
         
         One may interpret the things incorrectly; an individual could make mistakes; so can men collectively make mistakes.

         replyreport
   4. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They have a free will; don't they?

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Uhh , so you're saying believing in god is selfish , No I don't think this is lame  , I think its the ultimate non-answer to my question.

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

    Its just that your equating selfishness and Christianity? That makes no sense , Even "evolution" is in  limbo right now as to the lineage of man , turns out its not such a sraight line. And that possibly  the evolution of man isn' so securely defined.? So , My question still......why is it not ok to just let believers be ?  And why such a mission to "dis-prove" believers.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       God Bless you ahorseback!!! Why indeed. What's the worst thing that could happen? You'd have neighbors that believe that they need to love you as they love themselves? Lock the house honey!!!

       replyreport
    2. 51

       paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There is no harm in having a little tolerance and equipping with the reasonable arguments to defend one's faith. After all it were the Christians who started with the missions; now if they have been countered, they should not mind. Human beings are social; they should not be denied this faculty. Have a heart; please.

       replyreport