As far as I know, there exist so many Gods ( conceptual ). We can classify them as unscientific Gods and scientific Gods. Of course, the unscientific Gods, because they happen to be unscientific, can't be ' possible '. Then we're left with scientific Gods alone. But then again all these Gods fall into two basic categories: ( 1 ) the Einsteinian God and the Newtonian God. The problem is there exist irreconcilable contradictions between them. Claiming that the Einsteinian God is ' possible ' adds up to claiming that the Newtonian God is not ' possible '. Which side— Einstein's or Newton's— should we side with then ? That which makes our problem far more complicated is the fact that none of the two great figures of science cared to write a thesis on God. And scientific logic supports neither Gods.
[ photo source & attribution : By Maulaff (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons ( page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File … sion_8.jpg ) ]
In the nutshell: there is no such thing as scientific logic. There is a philosophical logic that guides a scientist to advance a hypothesis. But in science hypothesis is nothing if it is not supported by the evidence. The scientific evidence acquired by using scientific method. If idea can not be proven by scientific method, then it is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a philosophical question at most.
As for placing Einsteinian vs Newtonian gods, I don't really get it. Newton have published many theological books on God and their nature. To the specialists Einstein also have been known to think about the nature of God. That is how his principles of energy have to being.
The expression ' scientific logic ' is in line with expressions like ' commercial logic ', ' economic logic ', etc and used to mean the scientific line of thought or reasoning. It can also be taken to mean a set of arguments or reasons based on science or scientific data. An argument or idea may be unscientific. For example, the Newtonian ' First Impulse ' that Newton attributed to the biblical God the Father or the argument that because Einstein believed in God, it follows that the belief in God or gods is scientific is unscientific.
I don't think scientists need study or be versed in ' philosophical logic ' before starting scientific work or in order to achieve success in their scientific pursuits. They've got to study science subjects such as physics, chemistry, maths, medicines, etc before starting the career in science. I don't want to say the philosophical logic is in itself wrong or unscientific, or what appears an instance of scientific logic today may not prove unscientific someday. But I must point to the fact that the distinction between philosophy and science or between a philosopher and a scientist is too clear to be missed. As I see it, a philosopher without the knowledge of science is like a man groping around in the pitch-dark night. In this connection, I feel I should point to the degree known as PhD that is conferred to men of science as the recognition of their contributions to science. I view the PhD ( in full, Doctor of Philosophy ) as a ridiculous contradiction in terms.
I'd define a ' scientific hypothesis ' as a hypothesis based on scientific logic. Nevertheless, a scientific hypothesis may prove wrong and be rejected outright or accepted with due modification.
By ' the Einsteinian God ', I mean Einstein's view of God, and by ' the Newtonian God ' Newton's view of God. They're as different as Heaven and Hell are. While Newton identified his God with the biblical God the Creator, Einstein didn't believe God created anything in the universe. This is one instance of glaring contradictions existing between the two concepts of God the two great men of science used to cherish.
Of course you don't suggest that Einstein's discovery of the mass-energy equivalence equation ( i.e. E= mc.c ) has got a lot or something to do with his view of God, do you ?
Let me disappoint you on Einstein. This E=mc^2 equation stems directly from his Jewish thinking about nature of God. If you start thinking of God as Light, then darkness is absence of God. Thus, there is no negative energy. There is absolute Zero in terms of temperature. So according to Einstein, the Evil is absence of Good.
There is much more to discuss on the topic. Since this particular equation works against dialectical materialism. In dialectical materialism you need two opposite forces to act on something. It is like Good and Evil need to constantly work against each other.
It is really news to me that ' E=mc^2 equation stems directly from [ Einstein's ] Jewish thinking about nature of God. '
If you start thinking of God as darkness, then light is absence of God. Thus, I'm afraid, following your line of reasoning, you have to arrive at the conclusion that there happens to be no positive energy.
To see ' the Evil ' as ' the absence of Good ', do we really need to study Einstein ?
By the dialectical materialism, as far as I know, the universe is the unity and struggle of opposites. Matter and antimatter, flowering plants and non-flowering plants, luminous bodies ( e.g. stars ) and nonluminous bodies ( e.g. planets ), cold-blooded animals and warm-blooded animals, flying creatures and nonflying creatures, et cetera, et cetera, so many things including light and darkness as well as the good and the evil testify to the truth of dialectical materialism, don't they ?
I'm familiar with Einstein's musings not Newton's.
I will say God is not only possible, but probable. We each catch a glimpse but other than that small grace we are left to speculate. The universe consists of infinite variety which is, at the moment, 99.999% (and then some) unknowable. That is the nature of God, also. Contradictory ideas and beliefs are simply a reflection of these facts, or this belief. We each must take what we know and move forward with that, leaving room for others to do the same and giving them the same respect we would like for ourselves on that journey since so much of our belief is mired in speculation.
Newton did not invent "clock work universe", as the author makes you to believe.
On contrary, if one reads Principia carefully you would see clear causation and thus God the Creator theme through out the writings. Such is a quote: " To make this system therefore with all its motions, required a Cause which understood and compared together the quantities in the several bodies of the Sun and Planets and the gravitating powers resulting from thence ........ and to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies argues that cause to be not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in Mechanics and Geometry." You can start learning more about it here:
https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.word … ncipia.pdf
The reason I asked is specifically regarding the seemingly achilles heel to ontological arguments eg anselm, godel etc..ie the arguments are sound if it can be shown God is possible And whether Descartes or Leibniz overcame this etc was what I was looking for.
"God" is manifesting everywhere all the time. "God" is visible and invisible. God is the essence of each soul and being and molecule, atom, nucleus, system, solar system, etc. ... in creation and beyond.
Like the grass and the trees ...
and the rain
Nature is "God."
Do you know anything about a tree? Down to its cells, it was created before there was anything to evolve.
The evolution of plants is well understood.
Do things only look like they evolved?
The process of evolution, (which is apparent,) is understood, (observable) but not the prompting (unobservable).
Is it possible there is an immaterial force DETERMINED to live in a material world?
1 cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in:
"The process of evolution, (which is apparent,) is understood, (observable) but not the prompting (unobservable)."
"Is it possible there is an immaterial force DETERMINED to live in a material world?"
Why make up something when there is no need?
Nature just is. It needs no God to make things work.
No there is a cause and to not think so is unscientific.
Yes, it does.
To explain further is beyond the intellect and the five senses. Deal with it.
… and that's Science for ya.
Things don't create themselves. That is a paradox, and impossible.
No scientist would declare with certainty that there is no God or cause.
Consider the phrase, "Laws of Nature and Nature's God."
"Nature's God" equals CAUSE.
Its common sense
What did god create the universe with? How did he create the universe? Give me your scientific explanation of this.
"Himself" ... whatever "He" is… perhaps something beyond energy.
At essence we are It.
Why is it so hard to fathom?
What did you create these questions with? Besides presumably a computer, keyboard a typy finger etc etc? Can we assume a mind a character a personality? What drove you to do it? Your mind did it but something else spur you on like a will ? Check that, whats your motive? Where that come from? Can you show us?
It is said that God is in all things.
A child asked me, Where did the sky come from. I told him: " 'God'." Where did the grass come from, "'God'," I said.
"Does God love us?"
"More than you know," I said.
A friend of mine acted like I was a criminal after I told her about the conversation.
Do you teach in Public schools? Then yes, you are a criminal. Have you heard of separation of church and state?
Have you heard of being a human being? I am not supposed to touch a child in school either, but the other day a very troubled child was having a temper tantrum. The teacher I was assisting had been instructed to follow the child but not touch him. Guess what? I went up and hugged the child and he completely calmed down. Situation solved.
Atheists are not very scientific. They do not think scientifically.
Yep...without a doubt the Living God is possible due to this cosmos that's been standing for decades still has not fallen apart neither fallen on us/the earth. The grass on the fields still grows without any human watering it whilst the rain falls without any help from humans. Animals even though they remain animals...they do not rape each other whereas humans rape etc....Evidence that God exists!!!
Of course, God is possible. And we have to live with this awareness. We have to work with the laws of Nature with reverence. And not ignore them. We have to acknowledge each other. And not ignore each other. Or there will be consequences.
Belief in the Causer of all things allows us to behold all things in the right perspective.
After all, we did not invent the world and it does not revolve around US.
(Otherwise, we might think so ... which is delusional.)
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Just to believe “The Creator-God does not exist”; only because some scientists says so, is a very unscientific approach, more so when they don’t present any scientific proof to that effect.
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by daeemomin9 years ago
DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULAPlentiful Muddy Water + A Long Time + Many Coincidences = CivilizationWhen the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone...
by daeemomin9 years ago
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are...
by aka-dj5 years ago
I found this via a post on facebook. Thought it worthy of reposting here, since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument.I guess the "scientists" are not...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Nature is more truthful than scienceScience derives truthfulness from nature and nature derives truth from its creator, the ONE Creator God.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.