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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Um, Sort Of Yes, Yes, Yesyesyesyes, Yes Yes!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on September 6, 2001 11:46:35 UTC

Yes.

Sort of good points there Mario; BUT:

True; one may take a book, call it "Science"; and another, call it "Religion"; find some matching patterns where the Religion version was written first; and say "Wow. Religion thought of that first!". And one might look at the statistical nature of that exercise, and say "Um. Excuse me? What does that prove?".

But, it remains possible that some such matches of patterns happen to involve genuine prior reality- description by either book. The priority claims for science must face the same test; the trick works from either perspective.

However; my examples are not needles in a haystack. Your examples amount to a false analogy; they are not deep enough in reality-structure so an inappropriate comparison.

"Flat Earth, man before animals, Earth flooded, sun stilled, 6-day Earth creation" don't seem as basic or deep as "moment of creation", "God everywhere", "Universe alive", "3 is 1 of Existence."

I never mentioned the Bible in my post; but involved it indirectly I guess. I simply noted the possibility that in these very deep matters, not just any needles in a haystack; that science may be playing catch-up.

In 500 billion years time, Existence is still Existence.

Of course, one can readily show that Religion tries to keep up with what it thinks is science. It apparantly tries too hard sometimes, incorporating pseudo-science or junk science even (I've read this applies to references to psychology in Canon Law).

"God is Existence" is unambiguous.

Matching the patterns "God is everywhere" with "cosmic background radiation" appears illogical, so an unreasonable analogy.

The pattern matches I refer to are very precise:
example: the existence of the pattern-conservation we call photon (or e.g. atom or strong force etc.)
is delivered by a 'three is one' type complementarity. Existence = God Who is Three In One. The complementary nature of Existence is a very major issue; not any old needle in a Haystack. It stays major even 500 billion years hence. It appears there is a genuine situation of scientists playing catch-up here.

"Let there be light"; and the scientists find light has very curious behaviour and that the Universe started with electromagnetic radiation.
Lucky coincidence, or science playing catch-up?
How do you decide?

Before science came along, many aspects of Religion were categorised as "mysteries". It's not a case of people looking for a science-religion pattern-match in Bibles; though that would be an interesting exercise; but of noticing that certain "mysteries" are finally getting backing for their previously mysterious perspective, from science. It's not a question of fashion when the philosophical terrain is so deep.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 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