Prominent Christian Scientists in History

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you kindly. And yes it is true. Just because many scientists are Christians does not mean that Christianity is the worldview which corresponds to reality. This post is not an appeal to authority for the veracity of the Christian faith. It is simply to show that there are many intellectuals who see that there is evidence to accept Christianity as more than just a superstitious, antiquated fear based form of religion.

This post is to directly refute the claims that there is "no evidence for God" and claims like: "no scientist believes in God", or "science is monolithic". etc. etc. These men and women who specifically adhere to the Christian faith, not to mention the many that are not mentioned that fall under the umbrella of theism, are convinced that there is in fact very credible evidence for a creationist account of the origin of the universe and that it is supernatural in nature.

Then the OP is a refutation of a strawman.

 

[Elioenai26]

Then the OP is a refutation of a strawman.

Thank you for your contribution to this religious discussion!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I really don't understand the necessity of refuting the myth that Christians can't be scientists or vice versa on this particular forum. YouTube maybe. So I agree with you. I just don't see why it needed to be pointed out given that very few, in my experience, would challenge that idea.

 

[Dave Ellis]

what is truth?!, if some human be hurt, whether this would be a good thing when is bad?!, and in the same way, how it's possible such a bad thing to be a truth when is a lie?!, because if someone promises you that everything will be alright with you, but after it hurt you contrary to the promise, will this be a good thing for you or a truth?!, so, the truth is when all is okay with the people/souls according to the Will/Plan of God which is the most perfectly good, but the death, diseases, afflictions and the evils at all are not good things and for this reason there are no such things in the Plan of God

This is pretty well impossible to read... but if you're saying that evil isn't in God's plan, you're wrong. Otherwise, you're making the case that he's powerless to prevent evil.

and what is the genetic code(dna)?!, isn't it just a universal biological code of God with which He made all living beings?!,

No

that's why many dna segments of different living creatures are similar or even identical, because the genetic code is universal, not because there is a biological evolution,

DNA is not identical, unless you have an identical twin. However, it is similar amongst every living thing. Biological evolution has been observed, it's simply fact that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen.

and as regards the fossils of prehistoric creatures, they surely are a part of the conspiracy of the "darkness"/devil, because there has never been more than 5-6 millennia counted from the beginning of this eternity, and see how the used word in such cases even on the part of scientists is "pre-historic"

Never been more than 5-6 millenia from the beginning? Are you kidding me? Human Civilization is older than that! The last ice age was around 10,000BC. The universe as we know it is estimated at 14.6 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think your hatred and anger has caused you to miss the significance of my post yesterday. It was the long one. In that post I explained in great detail why your or anyone else's demands for empirical evidence will never be fulfilled. God is not something you can put in a test tube and look at, or in a slide under a microscope to scrutinize, or through a telescope to gaze at. He's much bigger than that thankfully!

I sense no hatred or anger from him, perhaps frustration, but that's it.

Anyways, so if evidence can not be provided, then what justification do you have for belief? How do you determine God actually exists and the Christian God is the real one?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then the OP is a refutation of a strawman.

That's very true, if they openly admit that empirical evidence can not be provided for Christianity.... then it is definitely not compatible with science. Science relies solely on empirical evidence.

 

[Elioenai26]

I believe you all have simply misunderstood my aim in posting here. It is not my intention to convince anyone whose mind is already made up. In fact, apart from the convicting work of The Holy Spirit, repentance is not even possible, let alone trusting in Christ for one's salvation.

Im not in the business of supplying empirical evidence to people who don't even demand it when making decisions in their own every day lives. Nor will any other Christian be disposed to do so. Nor will I speak any more of miracles so that you can berate them and degrade them and make fun of them.

I would also like to call you to read my two signatures. They are self explanatory.

I wish you well.

 

[Skavau]

I believe you all have simply misunderstood my aim in posting here. It is not my intention to convince anyone whose mind is already made up. In fact, apart from the convicting work of The Holy Spirit, repentance is not even possible, let alone trusting in Christ for one's salvation.

So for a non-Christian to repent, by your words here, it is not their choice. They have to have been worked by the "the Holy Spirit". This means I cannot be held accountable for remaining a non-Christian.

I would also like to call you to read my two signatures. They are self explanatory.

I wish you well.

Your signatures are wrong.

 

[Gadarene]

I believe you all have simply misunderstood my aim in posting here. It is not my intention to convince anyone whose mind is already made up. In fact, apart from the convicting work of The Holy Spirit, repentance is not even possible, let alone trusting in Christ for one's salvation.

It would be interesting to see what Christians would be like if God were to hold Christians partly responsible for doing a poor job to make the case for God. I suspect this smug attitude would be greatly diminished.

But no, instead we have this silly system, where some apologist wannabe comes along, does a poor job, and then blames either his deity or his target. Never himself.

Im not in the business of supplying empirical evidence to people who don't even demand it when making decisions in their own every day lives.

False equivalency. Those sort of decisions don't purport to have eternal consequence or make statements about absolute truth.

When making statements about absolute truth, nature of reality etc, then our requests are exactly consistent with the standard we use. It is Christians who are being inconsistent with the incredibly lax standards they use to post-hoc justify the belief they are already emotionally invested in.

Nor will any other Christian be disposed to do so. Nor will I speak any more of miracles so that you can berate them and degrade them and make fun of them.

Ok, so you have no evidence. Gotcha.

Next time you make claims you're gonna run away from backing up, do us a favour, and don't make them.

I would also like to call you to read my two signatures. They are self explanatory.

They're also more of the same presumption you have spewing since day one.

Far easier to just speculate about the motives of an entire group of people than actually engage with their arguments.

 

[KCfromNC]

we already testified in our previous reply(#23) about the produced on the part of beast's kingdom(666) "reality", and here we can inset that the evil is not right(-eous) i.e. when people/souls suffer or hurt, when the striving is/are concentrated for the salvation to humans, then there is righteousness, because any other direction is not the salvation itself i.e. at least there is a loss of the effectiveness/efficiency as regards the salvation, for example, one thing is when 100% of the humankind are completely saved, while another is when the saved are only 10%, and namely this is the subject in the Bible, while the evolution and the law of the jungle are not such subject, but there the interest(-ing) is different - something which is not the overall salvation itself, so, such reality which is not good and eternal for all humans is not more profitable than the reality of God's Kingdom although secret/unprecedented

Matthew 13:35 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.",

1 Corinthians 1:27-28 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea(ie to confound the sublime and honorable (things)), and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:"

Many of these are English words, but I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate by using them in this way.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thanks for adding to this discussion. I may be able to explain in more detail my aim in providing this list of notable intellectuals. The majority of them fall under what is referred to as orthodox Christianity.

If they're using scientific research to come to a conclusion backed by the evidence, why only the majority? Why not 100% agreement? Seems like if there was overwhelming scientific evidence you wouldn't have all this disagreement over what the facts of Christianity are.

Some may be in various denominations, however that is immaterial to the reason why I have referred to them. I have referenced them simply to prove that there are scientists who do not see their faith as being contradictory to science. That's all.

Sure, kept properly compartmentalized it's no danger to rational thinking in other areas. But "it's not too big an impediment to understanding reality if you ignore it during working hours" is not all that a strong endorsement for a belief system.

 

[KCfromNC]

I believe you all have simply misunderstood my aim in posting here. It is not my intention to convince anyone whose mind is already made up.

Will you please stop with the personal attacks against people who disagree with you? And don't be fooled, poisoning the well as you do here by implying that atheists are closed minded is a personal attack.

Im not in the business of supplying empirical evidence to people who don't even demand it when making decisions in their own every day lives.

Who are these mythical people who drive with their eyes closed and use faith alone? No one? Strange you'd bring them up, then.

Nor will I speak any more of miracles so that you can berate them and degrade them and make fun of them.

Asking for evidence is not mocking.

 

[Elioenai26]

Will you please stop with the personal attacks against people who disagree with you? And don't be fooled, poisoning the well as you do here by implying that atheists are closed minded is a personal attack.



Who are these mythical people who drive with their eyes closed and use faith alone? No one? Strange you'd bring them up, then.



Asking for evidence is not mocking.

If atheists are not closed minded, you all sure are misrepresenting them.

The real issue here as I have stated earlier is the fact that you desire to be autonomous. And you can be. Just don't expect Christians to agree with your view. I have nothing against atheists, in fact I am concerned for you all. God is able to change your hearts and minds; as many who were once atheists can attest to.

It also seems strange to me that those of you who put so much emphasis on evidence and knowledge would be spending so much time engaging people you know are concerned more about living in the Fear of the Lord which is the beginning of Wisdom.

 

[Gadarene]

If atheists are not closed minded, you all sure are misrepresenting them.

Not at all.

We have asked you to back up your points.

You have refused.

Who is the close-minded one here?

It also seems strange to me that those of you who put so much emphasis on evidence and knowledge would be spending so much time engaging people you know are concerned more about living in the Fear of the Lord which is the beginning of Wisdom.

Possibly because such people lack both evidence and knowledge, and wish to foist their ignorance on others.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not at all.

We have asked you to back up your points.

You have refused.

Who is the close-minded one here?



Possibly because such people lack both evidence and knowledge, and wish to foist their ignorance on others.

I shall leave you all to it. Best wishes to you all and I hope you find what it is you are searching for. If anyone would like to speak with me, please send me a private message. Thanks once again for bearing with me. Good day to you all!

 

[Davian]

Thanks for adding to this discussion. I may be able to explain in more detail my aim in providing this list of notable intellectuals. The majority of them fall under what is referred to as orthodox Christianity. This simply means that they believe Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ is the Messiah whose vicarious death and resurrection secured for them salvation from their sins and in turn guarantees them eternal life with God.

Some may be in various denominations, however that is immaterial to the reason why I have referred to them. I have referenced them simply to prove that there are scientists who do not see their faith as being contradictory to science. That's all.
...

We only have your assertion that these individuals do not see their faith as being contradictory to science. They may struggle with the contradictions, or compartmentalize their beliefs - it called cognitive dissonance.

 

[KCfromNC]

If atheists are not closed minded, you all sure are misrepresenting them.

Hey look, more personal attacks. Wonder why someone would resort to those?

The real issue here as I have stated earlier is the fact that you desire to be autonomous.

Will you please stop telling other people what they think?

living in the Fear of the Lord which is the beginning of Wisdom.

Proof of this assertion?