|
Many scientists believe in God. There are still many things that haven't yet been explained in
scientific terms and perhaps we could say that God and creation haven't been fully understood
yet.
Perhaps we should re-think how we understand God to answer this one.
Science can explain so much that was once attributed to a divine being and in pagn times to a whole
range of deities.
In pre- Christian times a variety of different gods, played different roles most of them connected
to nature, the family, warfare etc.,in order to explain the inexplicable to people who's scientific
knowledge was limited by our terms. To them it made sense.
Monotheism did away with the need for many gods.
Many people have a problem with the idea of one divine, male creator because the world comprises of
female and male beings of equal importance and value. Male God, male construct?
One problem science doesn't seem to be able to answer yet is , if in the beginning there was nothing
how did the whole of creation come into being? The easy answer is to say God
Thomas Aquinas said he needed no more proof of God than a perfect being of which nothing greater
could be imagined but this falls short of a convincing answer for the existence of God.
Some people prefer to see many reasons for being able to reconcile scientific explanation with God
too. Others see serious flaws in a perfect Being who allows evil and such badness in the world, they
would argue that free will is just an excuse.
I think we are still a long way from explaining everything through science but nearer to
understanding arguments for or against God because of advances in science. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Science cannot push God out of the picture because science deals with what is empirically
verifiable, God is not empirically verifiable, of course there are many things that are not
empirically verifiable, such as evolution. Yet people still believe in evolution. Proving the
existence of God, evolution, the existence of ancient civilizations or the guilt of a murderer are
deductive sciences, which means that there can be no such thing as absolute certainty, just good
reasons for believing. When there are two conflicting explanations, the explanation that has the
most and the most consistent use of the evidence is the one that should be excepted. Therefore,
science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Science cant prove God is not there since science has to be observed and you cant see God so you
cannot prove God real nor fake even though i believe in him |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How are they supposed to know if he exists or fake how about humans and prying and miracles and if
your dead which is the only way to see god how are you supposed to know? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree with the statement that science has pushed God out of the picture. In fact, not a single
scientist has disproved the existence of God, so how does this question arises? On the other hand,
there are many renowned scientists who believe in God. E.g. Kepler, Newton, George Gamow, Nicolas
Copernicus, Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein.
There are very good reasons to believe in Creator. The beauty and perfection in our universe
resulting from huge blast is a proof of fine tuner. Science hasn’t been able to explain the
complex design of protein molecule resulting “by chance”. Mathematical calculations shows
however that it’s not possible at all. Do you know the probability of amino acid sequence of
protein molecule forming by chance in the correct order is 1 in 10^950. In mathematics, a
probability smaller than 1 over 10^50 is considered to be almost impossible. The only answer left is
that there is a CREATOR.
When a complex computer program cannot be made without a programmer, then how can four letter code
of DNA forms by chance? We all believe in DNA code, but never thought of his coder. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There's evidence in every aspect of Science that points to there being a Creator. I know that's
quite the bold statement, but I do believe that it's true. And I believe in giving both sides a fair
change... And Theists, (especially Scientists are are Theists), are not getting a fair trial. I also
disagree completely with the education in their system of teaching the Theory of Evolution as fact.
And although all of the public is under the impression that it is fact and foolproof, it is NOT. It
has it's weaknesses and it's holes, and I hate that Theists don't get a proper chance to defend
themselves. Which is why I'm here. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
09 Jan 2008 02:21
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
