An Arbitrary Universe?

[Bushido216]

I fail to see how the perception of order means there is God. Just because we have math, and things in the universe can be measured with Math means we must have a God? Just because there is gravity, there must be God? I think the laws of physics have shown there is no God as described in the Bible.

How has physics done this? Because there are natural laws we do not need a God? Even in a strictly created universe there would still be laws of physics. As well, have you tested for God, a being by definition untestable by science, and found Him false? I fail to see how that could be.

After all, why would the Bible have so many inconsistencies with science such as those described in these forums about Creation, Adam&Eve, etc. If you believe God created the universe with a Big Bang, then I think you would have to throw out parts of the Bible or at least bend it to fit the scientific evidence.

I am a Catholic who ardently fights against YECists. I am offended by these statements, sir. The Bible itself does not preach a literal Genesis. The Bible is a collexion of words in a book. It is the meaning we attach those words that is important. I have argued against one interpretation of Genesis. I have seen that science studies that which God has created, and therefore cannot conflict with good theology. In matters theological I consult the Bible, and in matters scientific I consult my textbook. Where a question arises I defer to the appropriate area of study. There is no conflict. Parts of the Bible need not be thrown out. Viewpoints, yes, but not the Bible, the Holy and Inspired Word of God.

If the Bible was accurate in describing the origin of the universe, it would have made a mention of the BB, the much larger time scales, evolution, scientific principles, and the atomic theory. None of this is there, so that's why it's religion. There is simply no way to distinguish if the mythology of Christianity, Hinduism, or Greek Folklore are more scientific and accurate if none of them describe the BB.

The Truths of the Bible are not held in scientific data. They are held in the spiritual connectivity with God that the BIble conveys. The Bible is a message that we have fallen and need to be saved, and it is a guide book for how to do that. In that way it is Inspired and perfect. Most of the OT is stories and fables used to convey a point. The NT is the story of Christ, who, being God's only begotten son merged Man with God again in fulfillment of the prophecies. The story of Christ is the story of one actual Man who brought back the spiritual and mortal world together in communion. This is symbolized by the eucharist.

Just imagine, if the Bible just stated E=mc^2, F=ma, quantum mechanics, or some other laws, then we could all find some scientific credibility in the book. Well, that is just my opinion anyway. I can agree that it is hard to describe how the physical laws came about, or what caused the BB. In due time, when more evidence is provided maybe we can describe some more probable causes.

The Bible isn't about science. It's about Grace. Read it, someday, you might like it. I know I'm not the best apologist in the world but I think you are simply viewing the Bible wrongly. I understand the impression given you to by my mis-guided brothers and sisters can turn you away from God. However, know that God isn't about science; he is about bringing you back to the fold, and one day everyone will return to Him in Heaven.

 

[Iacchus32]

Certainly there is order, we are both suggesting that the universe can be explained by scientific laws then. If you suggest the order was created by a god or supernatural being, then there is no way to prove that either way.

How so? If there were a supernatural being, which doesn't exist in the phyiscal realm which, is what the problem is with Science, don't you think there would be a means by which to connect with it, say like internally, by means of a soul?

Science assumes there are no such higher powers and therefore does not try to disprove that possibility. Anyone can always make stories about what can not be tested or observed. Don't you agree? That is why I don't think Science is necessarily atheistic, you can believe in God or pink unicorns and still trust science.

Oh, I didn't realize Science was in the business of assuming anything? But then again we have this incredible assumption regarding the origin of our existence, suggesting something can come from nothing? Hmm ...

There are many YECs here that would disagree with you and those are folks we usually debate on this board. If the Bible is not meant to be read literally, then I think religion can coexist with the growing scientific knowledge. Again, most Creationists here will not accept that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Personally, I think the Bible has a lot of interesting stories, and it's certainly an influential book. I also feel the same way about Greek mythology and Buddhist scriptures too though.

What is the good (of creation), unless held in context with the truth? (of evolution). A fairy tale?

My point was that if the Bible was supposed to be taken as scientific fact or evidence of a literal Creation, then it has fallen way short. If you suggest that it is not science, and simply spiritual then I think we agree.

No, I'm suggesting there's a science to understanding what it means spiritually. And if understood in that sense, it becomes a science in understanding ourselves.

 

[funyun]

Entire thread

Iacchus, please read a book on 1) The Scientific Method 2) The Big Bang and cosmology and/or the geometry of the universe 3) Basic philosophy before you talk of things you don't know. Study the difference bwteen what science claims to be, and what it doesn't claim to be, and what is testable and untestable. Learn to udnerstand the difference between science and philosophy.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yes

So do I, but that does not make it so. The two of us believing it only tells us the two of us believe it, we could still be wrong.

Are you saying you can only believe in God then, and that there's no way of ascertaining it for yourself? I don't agree, but at the same time I'm not here to push that on people.

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

Perhaps it's as you say below, I didn't check to see if you were a "Christian?"

I believe God is capable of anything, that is why I have no problem believing he created via the big bang and used evolution as a tool in his creation of life. I always find the creationist standpoint that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are incompatible with God to be rather insulting and belittling to Him. I’m certainly not the one making the claim God is incapable of anything.

Well it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement with each other then, at least in this respect.

Wrong.

I take it you overlooked the fact you were replying to Christian before typing that response?

Ghost

Yes, I believe that may have been what happened.

 

[Iacchus32]

Iacchus, please read a book on 1) The Scientific Method 2) The Big Bang and cosmology and/or the geometry of the universe 3) Basic philosophy before you talk of things you don't know. Study the difference bwteen what science claims to be, and what it doesn't claim to be, and what is testable and untestable. Learn to udnerstand the difference between science and philosophy.

Have you seen Bushido216's post above? An excellent post! In fact if I didn't know better I'd think he was trying to scare everybody off!

 

[Iacchus32]

How has physics done this? Because there are natural laws we do not need a God? Even in a strictly created universe there would still be laws of physics. As well, have you tested for God, a being by definition untestable by science, and found Him false? I fail to see how that could be.

This is very well put, your whole post in fact. Remind me not to get into an argument with you, Okay?

 

[Bushido216]

Heh, no worries. Glad someone appreciated it.