There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator would explain a lot of things.
sort by best latest
It seems to me that the concept of creation is exactly contiguous with cause-effect, action-reaction whereas "mass can neither be created nor destroyed" opens up the mind to the concept of an un-caused cause.
I am an avid reader and have read Stephen Hawking. Everything has a beginning, a start if you will, even energy. What started energy? I have always found that aside from a creator, there is no explanation for things beginning in the science.
If you have studies Hawkins then you know that he sees no need for a creator for the beginning of the universe.
I understand that, but it doesn't explain the beginning. The physical science says there had to be something. The cosmological science says there had to be a beginning a start. The question remains what is the starter and how did it get there.
Which of course boomerangs back to where a creator came from?
As you say nothing can come from nothing.
And yet before Bang, what? What created time, space and energy?
God is Source. He is the perfection of Cause. He is the one-sided Zen coin of creation without consisting of effect. This is a hard concept for scientists. Discontinuity
Lonestar and Jstfishinman, you comment on (your lack of understanding about) the Big Bang theory. Yet... you can't refute my point about how Creationism is illogical. So? Where did god(s) come from? where were they before? Are we all made of God?
Aliasis, I have considerable knowledge of The Big Bang and Evolution. The problem with both is, how did they start. If you believe in God, I AM THAT I AM, you also believe that God always was and always will be. God has the power to create.
I would say "existence" always is and always will be, and "existence" has the power to create. Energy is not created, that's not what the Big Bang theory implies. If one universe was created, infinite universes could exist - multiverse theory.
So instead of God you use "existence" in the place of God. That's an interesting choice of synonyms.
Except "existence" is not a supernatural, personified entity. It's what we can describe everything, this universe and the possibility of other universes. It's science, not magic or mythology.
Existence - Merriam-Webster Online
c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being . d : sentient or living being : life. God fits this definition.
Oh, so you're saying the universe is made out of God, and we are all made out of God, because we're all a part of existence. I'm God, you're God, my cat is God. Quite an animistic thought to come from you.
God is all around us, It totally depends on your relationship with Jesus whether He is in you. I would never claim to be God, but all "existence" is dependent on Him. The Beginning and The End.
actually aliasis if you are looking from a Christian's point of view then yes everything is made up of god and his creations, just read how the angels are described to look and revelation will pretty much some it up as far as how strange things look.
jstfishinman , taking you back to the reference: Existence - Merriam-Webster Online; that dictionary simply is a record of the American use of language. Are you right to call out a "definition" from it? Hardly a universal meaning for all.
I am not an atheist, but I do believe that you are correct in your assessment of most who believe in a god. Very well put.
Very true MT.
My first question to anyone who asks if I believe in god is to define what a god is? Very few can actually give an accurate description, if I then ask for an address; well, I suppose that is just kicking the tires,,,lol
Misinterpreting God is a clever way to hide from Truth.
And I suggest mis-engendering "god" is a way of distorting whatever "truth" happens to be.
Dr. Leaky in the 1940's believed our earths C-14-Co2 levels would be equal. He took air samples to back his theory up. the scientific belief being carbon equalizes after 30,000 years. All of the air samples showed no equalization. The data was tossed
One guy doing bad science doesn't = God.
This happens many times. Many scientific lecturers will tell you God can not be the answer. That data is flawed if they can't explain it by natural means.
A very close minded approach to research, but it happens more than you know.
The fact that the disproved data was tossed is proof of how science doesn't accept any bad data but instead continues to search for real answers . Adding a mythical answer and claiming that it is somehow valid corrupts science.
Borsia, is it more open minded to toss data, or use it. Especially since the data is a true measure of what you took. Pure science should never proceed with a predetermined outcome. They should, as CSI puts it, follow the science where ever it leads.
Exactly and csi tosses anything that proves too be incorrect no matter how hard they worked to get the data.
Science only accepts true provable data everything else is just dust.
Nothing is gained by including uncertainties
33% of scientists believe in God, an additional 18 % believe in deity or a higher power, while only 41% don't believe in God or a higher power. These %'s have been about the same since the 1920's despite what college students are led to believe.
A large percentage of scientists believe in Allah and Shivu as well. Some of our scientific forebearers believed in Zeus and Thor, but 100% of scientists believe in science, and that is what matters.
Evolution itself is unprovable and can not be duplicated in a lab or in nature and yet many choose to believe it. I believe we all make choices as to what believe. Some believe the internet, others what they learned in school. My answers lead to God.
It's a misunderstanding to say "believe in" evolution. That's putting your own religious spin on it. Evolution is simply a suggested process, born out in many cases with scientific research. Never an end in itself.
jstfishinman - unfortunately, you're dead wrong. We HAVE observed evolution. Why do you need a flu shot every year? The flu virus evolves! We have plenty of proof of evolution, that's why it's a scientific theory (which means pretty much fact).
Scientific theories are postulated and then science looks to dis-prove them.
Scientific fact is repeatable observations, which can change as time goes on.
The flu virus may change it's characteristics, but it's still the flu virus, not another matter
Evolution to "something totally new" takes millions of years. But even in our time, we observe change in life based on genetic selection. How do you think chihuahuas came from wolves? Scientific theories are research-proven explanations, not guesses.
I'll take liberties with your own words: Creationism itself is unprovable and can not be duplicated in a lab or in nature and yet many choose to believe it." hmmm, it really fits well.
aliasis, evolution says that something changes from a big lizard to mammals then man. Your examples are not evolutionary , the flu is still the flu, a dog is still a dog.
As I said, millions of years BECAUSE of genetic selection, which we HAVE observed. This IS evolution. Yes, we can trace humans back, from our direct ancestors to apes and finally to single cell organisms.
aliasis .... If what you say is true, then why have we stopped evolving. Why are there still apes?
JThomp, look at the top of your head and tell me if you see your hair growing. Will you then state that hair doesn't grow? That isn't proof, it is myopia.
".....evolution says that something changes from a big lizard to mammals then man." !!!! Oh does it? What utter nonsense! Sorry Sir, but your religious bias is influencing your thoughts, I suspect.
Sorry sir.... your atheists beliefs are overcoming your reasoning
Thats a good response. See but you also brought up a good point "that you have been able to see", what we see is only temporal its the unseen that is here forever. The unseen that does amazing things sometimes
A deity is a super natural being, a creative force that flows through all of existence is a super natural being, or a deity. Is it the term God that you have a problem with?
an energy or source is not a supernatural being - nor is it a "God". Gods are created by man, not the other way around. Existence itself or a collective consciousness is part of us, not separate from us.
I would agree with Christin. Others will not, of course.
a mental state of personal concoction does not make an environment. the Spirit of the Lord does not control, but leads by example. every individual is personally responsible for themselves. the Creator exists because the Spirit of the Lord is alive.
Hi Jonny, I believe God creates us, from there we make the choices. Our ultimate eternal fate will be judged by God. His one eternal criteria is, did you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Our fate is sealed with that one choice. Choices are important.
Even when talking about energy, something or someone had to start energy in motion otherwise it just sits there like a couch potato. Not only that but energy of any kind would have to have a start, a beginning, if you will.
Read my hub. Intelligence needs a reactor to be generated in human brain cells. The intelligence of the universe needs no reactor. It is of its own will. Because some do not understand it they call it god. We either fear or worship the unknown.
The premise for scientific study is how did all this begin. There was a starting point in nothingness with no atoms, no molecules. The question is always the beginning.
Surely the question is always the beginning.... of our awareness. The awareness of the here and now is the end of our search. Being content and totally integrated with the NOW.
You raise the interesting idea about the difference between a physical presence separate from our awareness, and then wondering if an absolutely objective awareness is God, or part of God. Is our unbiased awareness God? I like that food for thought
There are "many" scientists who are professed Christians! The same all jargon from the same old argument.
Sorry, JT, but I fail to see your comment as nothing more than irrelevant to anything I have stated. Or did I misread your response....or maybe your response needs editing or maybe you didn't complete the thought?
There are "many" scientists who are professed Christians! True.
"The same all jargon from the same old argument." Maybe this is the reason you would not make a good scientist, JT.
Probably so jonny. I have never aspired to be a scientist.
How about if I re-phrase your statement ? "The same old jargon from the same old arguments," directed at you as a christian. I no longer aspire to be a christian - don't accept the claims of christianity or the indoctrination that comes with it.
This is your choice jonny. Have a great day.
My question was designed solely to create dialogue. Physics says that nothing produces nothing. To begin with something I agree demands an explanation. I also know science or any other human endeavor will never explain our complex universe.
Sciene does explain the universe. We landed on the moon and returned because they understand. What practical things have creationists done that proves their position. Scientific claims must be supported by the natural world or they are useless.
I like your way of thinking Dan. For me, what you say is true and the only way I can arrive at the "truth."
I AM THAT I AM tells us that God always was, if you believe the Bible. We can also read how the angels and heaven were created before light on the earth. My belief in God is a personal relationship built on my findings about the beginning.
But then why have any problem with one saying that the universe always was and always will be, that its form might vary but it never needed to be created?
It makes just as much sense and has far more direct evidence.
I'm cool with that,but it would do away with a few branches of science. Then what would all those graduate students my taxes pay for, study then.
I'm curious which branches you would do away with & why?
Cosmology and astrology come to mind.
Well, of course, astrology isn't a science. It is just an old superstition about how the position of stars & planets affect lives,,, pure BS and proven to be.
Cosmology; the study of the formation of the universe is a valid study.
That would depend on the country, some recognize and teach astrological science.
When you are asleep, you have no conscious awareness. The same when you are under anaesthetic. You were in a state of Nothingness. Somethingness existed without your knowledge. No proof except you woke up again.
Science isn't a "thing" it is a way of proving theories a methodology of repetitious controlled testing and observation of results. A creation of man
As a Christian that is always searching for answers, I found God in my studies. When I would try to look for other explanations God kept coming up as an answer. I know that the evidence of God is present if you look for Him. Some refuse to look!
If you look at a problem with an answer in mind you will always find it in your answer.
Isn't that how science does it? They are trying to prove what they all ready theorize. That was the point of the question!
Um, no. If they can't prove the theory, they modify it or abandon it. They don't continue to cling to it despite continuous evidence contradicting it.
You are nieve,right now science is trying to disprove variable speed of light,because it will destroy all the science since Einstein. Check out VSL Australia has all ready proven it and verified it.
jstfishinman - conspiracy theory. The very nature of science is to make conclusions based on research. If a scientist experiments hoping to find a specific answer, or bends research to suit an agenda (for example, religion), it's not real science.
Most scientist are willing to look at previous claims and evaluate if they are in fact accurate. I have to ask jstfish, are you willing to do the same to your Christian belief?
I am always doing research for my three blogs. This research leads me to many sites. One of those is variable speed of light that is all ready documented and destroys the last 100 years of science based on a constant speed of light. OOPS!
I'm not asking if you can reevaluate scientist beliefs. I am asking if you will ever be able to reevaluate yours in the same way you expect scientists to.
I am always evaluating what I believe, haven't found anything better than my relationship with God.
jstfishinman, whatever satisfies you in terms of "evidence," is fine for you. But religiously, where each opinion is founded mainly on belief, not proof, you evidence is unlikely to satisfy others.
No, science does not try to prove what they already theorize. Science uses the scientific method, designed to unbiasedly test hypotheses. There's no need to bastardize science because you're religious - science is a tool for understanding reality.
there is no deity integer in a legitimate equation, no gods in science.
Something is either true or false by repetitive testing. Scientist can't cheat to fit their desires. The result is fact.
" It is through the choice of each person that the Creator either lives or dies..." Exactly! So the Creator exists only in the human mind.
The biggest hold-up in scientific analysis is close mindedness. Anything proving a Creator has to be wrong. If you allow for a Creator, then you can follow the science and prove or disprove a creator without pre-existing ideas stopping the truth.
the problem is that there is nothing proving that any form of a god exists and science is all about proof, reliable, repeatable testing and results. that is the very definition of science.
The biggest hold-up in having a living, plausible faith is close-mindedness?
Who is more close minded, someone who believes in science only or someone that believes in God and science? Philosophically science only is more close minded, God and science open up all possibilities.
Using a god in science is like using the joker in a card game. it might simplify but it will never have validity. Its like using a question mark as part of a math equation and calling it whole.
You said, "I believe that we should never question the unknown. The unknown is our path to destiny. If we were suppose to know something there would be an answer/fact to that very question." If we followed this path, we would still live in caves.
I f we accept that man , "was made in the image of God" we understand God in terms of our human experience. Hence, Religion might be 'manmade " but not completely wrong on the nature of God. Science helps us understand God the Creator ,
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide