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
Hello Harv

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Pj Boyle on October 15, 2002 04:42:31 UTC

I had high hopes that this site would truely be a forum. To some extent it is. Thanks in part to yourself. Once I discovered the "replies" section , faith was vindicated.
You put before me two possibilities.
Many scientists took an epistomological standard approach to understanding our universe. Kepler for example had his model. It was wrong of course but then again who in the hell knew different unless, were it not for the model to help set into motion the efforts to disprove it. After all it was only one mans version.
The latter, and as you correctly gussed, the one that I lean towards more. is a little more difficult to disprove. It dwells more in the world of quantum physics. No truer model of our universe, I feel, can be found then that of the lowly atom. It is nearly our most basic breakdown of all things. And by it, all things must obey and exist. There is no room for intrepretaion. And it is true simplicity. And I like simplicity.

OF God. To adhere to the historical concept of God would be to not strive to understand the concept at all. The historical God only challenges man by challenging mankinds sin. What ever that is. I strived to merely influence some to ponder the God concept itself. It is far greater then that of the Bible. If the bible were to not exist then would God also not exist? I propose that this would not be true. If we did not have clocks then would time not exist? I propose this would also not be true.The existance of these concepts is then not dependant upon our historical measure of either one. The concepts, in order to be true, must stand on their on merit.
The only beginning to time is as it would relate to us. But the time itself would stand on its own. We see the universe expanding. Relative to our place within it. Hubble stated this accurately when he observed that "no matter where he stood, the universe appeared to be moving away from him". Of course it was. But relative to where he stood at any given point it would appear as so. but that cannot imply that the universe is expanding as a whole. I will try to keep in touch. please do the same.

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 1994-2018 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