Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by S.H. Le on September 29, 1999 16:47:30 UTC

: As promised to my good freind Viper, here is the basis for my beleif in God. Firstly, I will defend my stand as a born again Christian on the basis that I see no compelling reason to abandon it. Though this may sound simplistic, it is based on sound philosophical ground. There have been two events in the history of the universe, the mechanism of which, science is unable to elucidate. These are the creation of the universe and the creation of life. Suffice it to say, these would qualify as meta-physical events; that is, they are not amenable to any force or mechanism that could account (with any reasonable probability) for their existence. So where does that leave us? It seems that if one subscribes to the naturalist veiw, then the creation of the cosmos becomes problematic due to the inescapable, if not maddening, cause and effect question. I feel safe in saying that God is not subject to cause and effect. As for the origin of life on this planet, the more bio-molecular science reveals to us , the more mind-beggaringly improbable it is that life came about through a random process. Even some devote evolutionists will concede that abiogenesis represents the "soft under-belly" of the evolutionary paradigm. If there is no evidence of randomness in the origin of life why should we assume it was a factor in its development? You would agree that the opposite of random is un-random? Lastly, I would offer the Bible as a body of historical and phrophetical evidence.

Okay Bzrd, I accept the challenge of disputing your seemingly valid arguments.

You said: How was the universe created? I Say: -You've assumed a great deal in making this statement. How can you possibly assume that not only the universe had a first cause, but this single first cause was the cause of all things? ie. Everyone has a birthday, but it's illogical to say that everyone has a birthday that coincides on the same day. Secondly, lets just take the premise that the entire universe was the result of a single cause. How can you then assume that just because the universe had a first cause, this cause need be all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing (ie. Christian). -How do you know the universe hasn't always existed? That's just as inconceivable as a God that's always existed.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins