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
Re: Existence (which One??)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by daViper on July 14, 1999 19:56:20 UTC

: : : : : What would be a good way to go about proving the existence of God?

: : : : Well, I would start with the currently accepted cosmology. The fact that the universe had a beginning. If I have a proper understanding of the Big Bang theory (I trust you or someone else will be happy to correct me) energy was converted into matter. The first sentence of Genesis states that God created the heaven and the earth. Next the writer says that the earth was without form and void. Now, would not the matter (or energy if you will) that forms the earth be present at the instant of creation? Next, I believe God said "Let there be light". If I am correct, energy is not converted directly into matter, but goes through a plasma phase. One of the properties of a plasma is that it is dark, so that an observer would see nothing at this stage of the Creation. However, as the plasma is conveted into matter, it would produce an immense quantity of light. I beleive this process of releasing light from plasma is referred to in physics as "decoupling". And God divided the light from the darkness. I could go on. It would seem rather fortuitous of some Bedouins thousands of years ago to so aptly describe the first moments of Creation.

: : : :: : : : Ok. I suppose we could start with the various creation mythologies of different societies down through the ages.

: : : My favorites are the Hindu and Native American ones. The Hindu one even accounts for cycles in the universe as if it had already concieved of the Big Bang, followed by a collapse, to be followed by another Big Bang with the present incarnation of Vishnu being the God of now.

: : : Native American mythology uses more colorful symbols to represent God such as the Hawk or even the Turtle. In some cases, these religions have more than one God with the sky being the Father and the Earth being the Mother.

: : : The Talmud/Bible myths of Judaism and Christianity seem more vague in their depictions of Creation. Since there are two distinct versions of how it happened in both texts, which contradict each other, it sort of comes across to me as if they didn't really refine their thoughts on it very much. It makes me wonder sometimes how it is some Judeo/Christian followers get so fired up over the precise details of their particular mythology since there really isn't much deatil to it. They seem to kind of make it up as they go.

: : : All in all though, I suppose any folklore is as good as another when it comes to trying to prove the existence of God with it. : : _____

: : Very true. Religious perception and facts have foremost selfserving puposes, then historical, cultural and geographic roots. Some groups being more imposing than the others. To understand this phenomena is to partake in the discussions of psychology and anthropology, or the general constructions and deconstruction of realities.

: : At this point, would we all indulge, either through understanding or conflict, which religion is right or wrong?

: : Tön

: Religion is all right. So is science. : Moses said that when we encounter a contradiction in scripture, say as between commandments, rather than negating both, we should look for the underlying principle that makes both true or correct. : This process can be applied to all science and religions. In this regard the scientists seem to be doing a better job at unification within science, but not at the unification of science and religion. : Ones scientific credibility is lost if the unification of science and religion is considered.

::::: I really like what both you and Ton have to say here. I also think it is unfortunate that what you say is true.

I get the feeling that most religions think science is out to disprove God when in reality it is not. This is not to say that there are scientists who are atheistic, there certainly are some, and some of these, but not all, do try to use science as a sort of proof for their point of view. It really can't be done though since a more seasoned thought knows that you cannot prove a negative.

I also do not understand why a religious person would suddenly say some new scientific discovery cannot be true since it conflicts with their belief. If a discovery turns out not to be true, it is because sufficient evidence cannot be produced to back it up, not because some belief prohibits it from reality. Maybe the "new" discovery is correct, maybe it is not. If it turns out to be true however, it seems any thinking religious person would have to realize that what they may have believed in, may be wrong if it conflicts with evidence that can be duplicated easily. This is very difficult for some people to do.

In the end, both religion and science are very abstract at proving anything new. Science has to rely on repeated experimentation and testing to confirm it's discoveries, and religion has to rely on the individual being open to the acceptance of that which has not been known before.

It is not possible for anyone to know all truths. It is only possible to continue the persuit.

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 1994-2020 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