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
Theistic Scientists Hope Science Will Support Them

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Morgan Powell on April 17, 2001 20:25:42 UTC

When the cosmic background radiation was discovered there were only two scientific theories considered, as I recall. Newer theories may come forward. They must naturally be in agreement with experiment (e.g., the CBR, cosmological redshift, H/He ratio).

> The big bang is consistent with theistic
> creation scenarios, not in conflict with it. Of
> the two theories you say are in conflict, it is
> the steady state theory that is inconsistent
> with theistic creation, not the big bang.

It's interesting that some people used to think the opposite. The world was created, but the universe was thought of as eternal. Your view is different, not because God has revealed truth to you or to your religious leaders, but because science has convinced you. Which source of knowledge do you trust, science or religion?

Scientific theories like the Big Bang are not consistent with theism. Science explains how things work without God. As scientific knowledge progresses god(s) are needed less and less to explain things. Now God can't even exist in our enormous universe but has to exist outside of it.

It is the sincere hope of all scientifically-inclined theists that science will support their beliefs. Such was my hope and expectation as a Mormon scientist.

Some people believe that the Genesis account has been validated by science. You perhaps disagree. When I mention crazy things some religious people say and do, one of my theist brothers now replies "I'm not responsible for every crazy thing people say or do." He's right, but I think the whole attitude is wrong. Instead of believing in God and afterlife (because you were taught as a child and it feels good) and then look for how science can allow for or even validate your belief, I think you should ask whether there is sufficient scientific basis for your belief in the first place.

In my analysis the evidence is so poor that atheism seems the most reasonable philosophy.

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 1994-2019 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