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
Re: Sounds Interesting ....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by James Andrews/">James Andrews on February 15, 1998 04:47:15 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..... Bhuddha's phylosophy...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 fact it meant that genious and breakthrus..paradigm shifts can only be accomplished if you break the binderies of the things in the past..... : : : : new discoveries... an new invention does not last forever...its time will come until some new human being comes up with better idea or solution.

: : : : based on faith..created by faith ..kept thru the centuries thru faith...there will be no greater god....

: : : Infact you should say God MAY be based on faith. : : : It is also a possibaltiy that there is a real live : : : God out there.

: : : You assume much more than you can prove

: : 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 ?

: Dear who-ever-you-are:

: You are assuming wrong. The pastor next door is not asuming that he : (or she!) can prove anything. I dont 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 asside our preduces (sorry my spelling is not wonderful) : and not totally right off what they consider to be the truth.

: Dont you think?

: : As for your question "who's got the 'better' assumption?"...

: As we are dealing with the unknown and unproven, both asumptions are equally valid. : Just think where we would be if throughout history we wrote off something simply because : it did not line up with the current thinking of some people. Lets set an example and be open to the unthinkable : Einstein was.

God, were that I were 19 again and could choose to study the wonderous 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 its' 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. It has validated Him!

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