|
A Re-Visit & Revision In The Making: An Evolution In Creation....
May It Please Allah that I should start from the begining of the thread topic at:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/3.shtml?base=2550
Posted by Ivan on January 16, 1998 10:50:52 UTC
The topic on God & Science has been around for quite some time, yet no definite answers could be drawn as to 'HOW THIS UNIVERSE STARTED.'
Personally, Science is bringing us somewhere, that's why I rather place my belief on Science.
Would it be fair to believe in 'God and Science', or the choice should only be one?
Thanks for any comments!
Posted by John/">John on January 16, 1998 13:18:47 UTC
: Would it be fair to believe in 'God and Science', or the choice should only be one?
I think belief in both is essential. I think they are not all that different. To believe in God requires faith. To believe in science requires knowledge, understanding and observation. As time moves on science understands more of what use to take faith to accept. Are we trading God for science? Or are we just understanding more of what God (The One) is and/or has made and /or continues to make and evolve?
(The One) Definition of God (very broad one at that) All Natural Laws < GOD
Posted by Joel /">Joel on January 26, 1998 00:53:34 UTC
: Would it be fair to believe in 'God and Science', or the choice should only be one?
I believe that the only need for science is so that mankind can see and recognize the evident signs of God in creaton itself. From the macroscopic studies of cosmology and astronmy, to the biologic studies of the animal kingdom, down though to microscopic study of cellular composition and bio-chemical interactions and into the sub-atomic study of quantum mechanics. All of these differnet and varied studies all point to a complex and structured design, all to complex and interactive and dependant upon one another to simply have come into being on there own. A great book that shows the complexity of the most simple bio-chemical processes is by the author Micheal Behe and is titled "Darwins Black Box." I read it and came away astounded at just a glimpse of the different, minute, intricasies found in the simplest of biologic processes. Anyhow, through my observations of the environment around me, I come away with the understanding that God's hand is evident in everything, though I may question why some things are as they are. My ignorance and questions about my surroundings give me a since of humility and awe towards a creator and this humility grows as new things are discovered, which in turn simply lead to more questions, ad-infinitum. Joel
Posted by Marisa/">Marisa on February 5, 1998 10:29:10 UTC
: Would it be fair to believe in 'God and Science', or the choice should only be one?
To believe in Science? I would say understand the timing that has presented the facts..... Buddha’s philosophy...he added that >> In order to see the light of wisdom you should not >> believe the things you heard from, the things people tell you, the things your teacher tells you, the things you read etc..
But this doesn't mean that you should not believe in anything or trust anybody. In fact it meant that genius and breakthroughs...paradigm shifts can only be accomplished if you break the binderies of the things in the past..... New discoveries... a new invention does not last forever...its time will come until some new human being comes up with better idea or solution.
God is based on faith; faith is created by God; faith is kept thru time with faith; what is there in creation greater than faith?
Posted by Susan Gassen on February 6, 1998 18:00:33 UTC
As a matter of fact you should say God maybe based on faith. It is also a possibility that there is a real live God out there.
You assume much more than you can prove
Posted by ManOfNature on February 11, 1998 04:11:28 UTC
Dear Susan, I think Marisa has her point. If you think she is assuming more than she can prove, than I'm thinking the Pastor living next door is assuming more than he can prove. At least the Earth has its reasons to stay in its orbit (scientifically proven), while my friend living next door can only say that was the beauty of his God's creation. Well, who's got the 'better' assumption?
Posted by Susan Gassen on February 11, 1998 17:34:24 UTC
Dear who-ever-you-are: You are assuming wrong. The pastor next door is not assuming that he (or she!) can prove anything. I don’t ever think I have met one that has ever used the word "prove", they tend to use things like "faith" which is a far cry from proof!
If we want them to consider what we are trying to prove, the least we can do is set aside our prejudice and try not to totally right off what they consider to be the true; what do you think?
As for your question "who's got the 'better' assumption?"...
As we are dealing with the unknown and unproven, both assumptions are equally valid. Just think and ask: Where we would be if throughout history we wrote off something simply because it did not line up with the current way of thinking in some people?
Let’s set an example and be open to the unthinkable; Einstein was.
Posted by James Andrews/">James Andrews on February 15, 1998 04:47:15 UTC
Some say: God! Were that we were 19 again and could choose to study the wonderful universe He created. You are ALL missing something. You can explain the logic of the Earth's rotation around the sun, but you can not explain the logic of the existence of the Earth. Who is it that you think created the universe out of nothingness. The universe, by its own laws, did not just come into existence. The cause for it’s' birth MUST be outside of itself. You can not say the universe willed itself into existence, therefore, something or someone created it.
Science hasn't destroyed God. Logical thinking is more conclusive, for proof of God, because Logic is a science and absent of emotion that is often confused with faith.
|
