ATOMS

[vajradhara]

I guess non-Creations do believe that stars created themselves, through gravity.

namaste NC,

doesn't the word "create" denote an intelligence that "creates"? if so, this is not at all what we non-creationists think.

matter is energy and energy is matter. there is no difference... only different in your mind (thanks Yoda, i enjoy that phrase).

E (energy) is = M (mass - matter) x C (the relative speed of light) squared.

i thought that the answer of nucleosynithsis was a great answer to the question, by the way.

 

[ej]

I guess non-Creations do believe that stars created themselves, through gravity.

The story of creation as told in Genesis has been refuted by several internationally-reputable men of the church. They believe it to be a metaphor, or an over-simplification. Since no explanation can be guaranteed 100% infallible, it's up to you to decide what you believe.

You can read the science explanation (or get mainframes to explain it to you bit-by -bit! ) and still believe in God.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It is godless in the sense that no god is taking part in it.

How do you know that? God could very well be guiding evolution for all you or I know. Of course, from a scientific perspective, science cannot answer that, since science cannot test the supernatural.

But again, that doesn't mean evolution and God are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mainframes]

namaste NC,

doesn't the word "create" denote an intelligence that "creates"? if so, this is not at all what we non-creationists think.

matter is energy and energy is matter. there is no difference... only different in your mind (thanks Yoda, i enjoy that phrase).

E (energy) is = M (mass - matter) x C (the relative speed of light) squared.

i thought that the answer of nucleosynithsis was a great answer to the question, by the way.

'Create' just means that something has come into existance, it doesn't require an intelligent creator. eg. the right conditions can create a tornado, it wasn't created by an intelligence however. And in the same way a cloud of dust and gas creates a star under the influence of gravity.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

name one single scientific theory that requires God.

 

[ej]

name one single scientific theory that requires God.

In your opinion, perhaps there are none.

In the opinions of others, however, the opposite may be true. I don't need to remind you that a proportion (not quite half, I believe) of ground-breaking scientists are Christian

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

We are not talking about opinions here emmajane. I myself am a Christian. However, I have yet to open a textbook and see any scientific theory that requires God for it to be substantiated.

That is what I am asking for. One single example of a scientific theory that could not be considered "Godless"

Is God required in:
The General Theory of Relativity
The Special Theory of Relativity
"membrane" or "M-Theory"
Newtonian Physics
"Big Bang" Thoery
Evolutionary Theory


There are many theories out there to explain the phenomenon we observe in nature. Not one of them mentions God. None of them are saying God does not exist, they just don't mention HIm. No opinion there, just explanations of observed phenomenon.

 

[ej]

I understand what you say.
And it's a good point!

However, the absence of God in scientific textbooks does not prove His existence nor His non-existence ...

Perhaps the authors felt that by mentioning God in their texts, the text would sell less copies in institutions with atheist / agnostic staff

Or perhaps the authors documented their proven and observed measurements and phenomena only - after all, further reflection on such topics is where Physics meets Philosophy and Religion, and it boils down to opinion...

 

[Arikay]

Of course, its a trick question, as any theory that requires god, is not part of science. (The only exception I can think of is the deity first cause proposition, but then again, its not theory nor is it without competition.)

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Just because God is not required does not mean that he can not participate in some unobservable way. However science only deals with the observable and verifiable evidence. If science were to rely on the "God dunnit" theory, which can not be proved or dismissed, then it wouldn't be science, it would be theology.

 

[Gormless]

name one single scientific theory that requires God.

As an atheist, I never thought I'd be asking a Christian this: name one single scientific theory that precludes God? In both cases it is not possible to answer the question. As Arikay states, any theory that requires god isn't scientific, and any theory that claims to to prove god isn't involved isn't a valid scientific theory, as one cannot prove a non existence.

Good question though

G.

 

[JohnR7]

As an atheist, I never thought I'd be asking a Christian this: name one single scientific theory that precludes God?

The theory of evolution denys God.

According to evolutionary thoery, man is the way he is because he evolved that way. The Bible tells us that man (the origional man before the fall) was made in the image of God. Man was created perfect, there was no way to add to what God did to improve it in any way. God said that He was finished. But evolution says that man is still evolving and is not finished.

 

[Arikay]

Um, No John. You should know this by now.

"The theory of evolution denys God"
False

"The theory of evolution denys The god John believes in, that follows Johns interpretation of the scripture"
True

Tell me, is god a mammal quadraped, thats around 5-7 feet tall, etc?

If not, then maybe the "image" god made us in wasn't physical but spiritual. Maybe we are the only animal to have a Soul. Maybe our soul was perfect, but then it fell into sin.

The theory of evolution denys God.

According to evolutionary thoery, man is the way he is because he evolved that way. The Bible tells us that man (the origional man before the fall) was made in the image of God. Man was created perfect, there was no way to add to what God did to improve it in any way. God said that He was finished. But evolution says that man is still evolving and is not finished.

 

[Gormless]

The theory of evolution denys God.

No it doesn't. It denies your interpretation of the bible (as does almost any objective analysis of reality), but it most definately does not deny God.

You sir would do well to make the effort to read up on modern design methods being used in software and electronics. You will find a recurring theme: evolution. We humans are waking up to the fact that the best way to design is to use evolution. Do you really dare to bellitle your god by suggesting he too wouldn't use the best possible design method?

According to evolutionary thoery, man is the way he is because he evolved that way. The Bible tells us that man (the origional man before the fall) was made in the image of God.

Thus the bible tells you God influenced evolution to result in humans: the design model he wanted.

Man was created perfect, there was no way to add to what God did to improve it in any way.

Seems unlikely, given that (a) humans aren't perfect, and (b) your God is all powerful. Are you suggesting he lacked the power to improve his design?

God said that He was finished. But evolution says that man is still evolving and is not finished.

We know that life is still evolving - we can observe it happening. Therefore you simply wrongly interpret your bible if you take that to mean that nothing could change after your God had finished.

G.