You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CNBC Maria Bartiromo's Exclusive Interview with Gov. Sarah Palin
- Thread starter TT1
- Start date
The search for God is the search for an "Initiator". Like someone who hits the 1st domino in a string and all the others follow.
Science can measure the dominoes or the forces that act upon them to explain their reactions, but cannot account for the Initiator.
The Big Bang theory goes to microseconds before the creation of the universe, but not to time zero - or even before time zero.
So these are questions that science has no answer to. However, that does not mean science is worthless. It is very valuable.
As Einstein said, he "wanted to understand the thinking of God" as he searched for his Unified Field theory. Science lets us glimpse what that thinking might be - if you believe in an Initiator God....
To deny science is to deny creation as it exists and therefore is actually atheistic.
For those that would deny the existence of God - or those that would claim to understand God from reading a book that is in something as limiting as "language" - you either lack the wonder that is inherently part of the grace in the human race - or you have a hubris that is all too often too much present in it.
Science can measure the dominoes or the forces that act upon them to explain their reactions, but cannot account for the Initiator.
The Big Bang theory goes to microseconds before the creation of the universe, but not to time zero - or even before time zero.
So these are questions that science has no answer to. However, that does not mean science is worthless. It is very valuable.
As Einstein said, he "wanted to understand the thinking of God" as he searched for his Unified Field theory. Science lets us glimpse what that thinking might be - if you believe in an Initiator God....
To deny science is to deny creation as it exists and therefore is actually atheistic.
For those that would deny the existence of God - or those that would claim to understand God from reading a book that is in something as limiting as "language" - you either lack the wonder that is inherently part of the grace in the human race - or you have a hubris that is all too often too much present in it.
i am not the one trying to defend a 6000 year old earth view.Quote from jonbig04:
I look silly? You cant even intelligently respond to what I posted 6 posts ago. You just keep saying the same thing that I've already addressed and posting links. You bit off more than you could chew, and it's obvious.
Quote from MarketMasher:
The search for God is the search for an "Initiator". Like someone who hits the 1st domino in a string and all the others follow.
Science can measure the dominoes or the forces that act upon them to explain their reactions, but cannot account for the Initiator.
The Big Bang theory goes to microseconds before the creation of the universe, but not to time zero - or even before time zero.
So these are questions that science has no answer to. However, that does not mean science is worthless. It is very valuable.
As Einstein said, he "wanted to understand the thinking of God" as he searched for his Unified Field theory. Science lets us glimpse what that thinking might be - if you believe in an Initiator God....
To deny science is to deny creation as it exists and therefore is actually atheistic.
For those that would deny the existence of God - or those that would claim to understand God from reading a book that is in something as limiting as "language" - you either lack the wonder that is inherently part of the grace in the human race - or you have a hubris that is all too often too much present in it.
if you are trying to say nature itself is god that i can respect. its the idea of a personal god that all evidence falsifies.
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
-- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
Quote from RichardRimes:
All about Alaska....what was her vision for America? Has she traveled much outside Alaska? Outside the US?
mmmm...... never mind ...my sister just informed me that when she went to visit the vets in Kuwait last year she needed to get a passport because she had never traveled outside the US. And I still haven't gotten the answer to the question "has she even read the US constitution OR Bill of Rights"...Have any of YOU????
Quote from RichardRimes:
mmmm...... never mind ...my sister just informed me that when she went to visit the vets in Kuwait last year she needed to get a passport because she had never traveled outside the US. And I still haven't gotten the answer to the question "has she even read the US constitution OR Bill of Rights"...Have any of YOU????
Anybody who hasn't also running for VP...?
Quote from vhehn:
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
I'm not sure where you got this, or if you wrote it, but as for the first part, I couldnt agree more. The fact that in your earlier post you say i am "defending" something says to be that you lack reasonable reading comprehension skills. I would not sit here and defend creationism, just as I wouldn't defend evolution. The fact that you think you have such a great understanding of these issues is why i said you look silly. Even Enstien concedes that the answers aren't there...yet YOU have found them? YOU are qualified to pass judgment on others for what they believe? You have no appreciation for the vastness of this problem and how deep it goes. It's been present throughout mankind's and still is today. Yet YOU have it all figured out? You must think you do if you are so quick to denounce what others think.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. ..."
-Socrates
But of course, Socrates wasn't YOU now was he?
Quote from jonbig04:
I'm not sure where you got this, or if you wrote it, but as for the first part, I couldnt agree more. The fact that in your earlier post you say i am "defending" something says to be that you lack reasonable reading comprehension skills. I would not sit here and defend creationism, just as I wouldn't defend evolution. The fact that you think you have such a great understanding of these issues is why i said you look silly. Even Enstien concedes that the answers aren't there...yet YOU have found them? YOU are qualified to pass judgment on others for what they believe? You have no appreciation for the vastness of this problem and how deep it goes. It's been present throughout mankind's and still is today. Yet YOU have it all figured out? You must think you do if you are so quick to denounce what others think.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. ..."
-Socrates
But of course, Socrates wasn't YOU now was he?
only the willfully ignorant would equate our knowledge of evolution with a primitive myth like the creation story. there is reams of evidence for evolution and zero for special creation. as Francis S. Collins a christian and a genomics expert said. the science of genetics has proven common decent.
"Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Quote from vhehn:
only the willfully ignorant would equate our knowledge of evolution with a primitive myth like the creation story. there is reams of evidence for evolution and zero for special creation. as Francis S. Collins a christian and a genomics expert said. the science of genetics has proven common decent.
"Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Do you not read your own postings? from your post:
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. "
And this doesn't really matter, but nothing you have posted is even very conflicting with creationism, but you dont know that because you are "willfully ignorant" when it comes to creationism. Open your mind and see the bigger picture. You still havent said anything new since my first long post.
sure. its impossible to prove a negitive and the religious always find a way place a god in any gap in our knowledge. superstitious beliefs have to exist outside of our present knowledge.Quote from jonbig04:
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. "
at some point those of us with an open mind have to look at the evidence and conclude that with 150+ years of scientific enquiry and all evidence pointing to natural causes and none pointing to supernatural causes the case is made. only the willfully ignorant can still find a way to rationalize the biblical creation story as true or even possible.