Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because God created the universe, the study of the universe would be examining God's works. So in theory through science, we can learn something about God's character in His creation. All of this is true in the Christian sense because we know God is intimately involved with the creation.
We can't physically see God, but we can see His creation. Just like us studying the ancient ruins of civilizations long ago, we can learn something about the builders through the works they made.
That doesn't even come close to answering the question.
Wanna try again and actually address the question this time?
How in the world would science do that? You can't conduct tests or experiments on God. You can't develop a hypothesis which can be repeatably tested.
This looks like a ridiculous question unless you can provide some method whereby science could do a scientific study of God.
I'll repeat myself. You don't seem to have any idea at all what science is or what science does.
I would have to disagree, God does have tests where he tells us to test him to see what happens, but as far as science, you are correct, repeatable outcomes don't always happen, but if an individual really had the passion to commit to what God tells him to do, God can be proven to him.
Rudimentary, but it looks like you're beginning to understand.
Yes, it is. In some cases, we can watch it happen.
We don't know. Maybe we are, and maybe there is another creation that is above us.
Why should it stop? Natural selection is an ongoing process.
All living things evolve. Some evolve so quickly that it can be observed in real time.
That is correct. Humans alive today are somewhat different from humans that lived thousands of years ago. One thing that is easy to see is that humans are taller now that they were as recently as a thousand years ago.
No, the astrophysicists aren't saying "if." They are observing these things as they happen. Of course, nobody knows how long this process will continue.
What makes you think that? Has somebody determined that there is a limit to how far light can reach?
That's almost certainly incorrect. Stars form and stars die all the time. We don't even know if all stars collapse into black holes when their energy dies out.
You've shown your lack of knowledge again. (Maybe astrophysics isn't for you.) Black holes don't need anything to keep them going. They suck everything (including light) in because of their enormous mass. They are not using up energy to exist. Where did you get the idea that black holes evaporate?
What is your source for this information? I've never heard of a "Heat Death of the Universe."
What does that even mean? Come to naught?
Where did you come up with the idea that God's what becomes fruitless, void, and vain? Sounds like something you just made up.
No, it doesn't. Science deals with what is observable. Scientists would not be using terms like "becomes fruitless, void, and vain?"
Thank you, mensa. This discussion with Heavenese reveals the kind of misinformation a "little knowledge" can foster. Heat death is a hypothesis based on thermodynamics and entropy. As I pointed out elsewhere, Fred Hoyle's mathematically sound "continuous creation" theory (superseded by the Big Bang theory) may well be more appropriate for the universe's ultimate fate, IMO. We cannot know which hypotheses of the universe's fate are true!
Of course, I AM biased because I "know" the universe is conscious and living. God's LIFE "expands" the universe ("creation"). His life ("growth") represents the continuous creation. (There is no reason to presume that the Big Bang was a single act of creation, IMO.)
What makes you think that? Has somebody determined that there is a limit to how far light can reach?
I doubt that Heavenese can answer the following questions that you ask him, and I'm certainly not defending him but I do want to address these questions.
It appears that the further galaxies are from us and from each other the faster galaxies are moving away from us and each other, except for those which are gravitationally bound to each other, such as the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies for example, the faster the expansion of space carries them away from each other. Although nothing in the universe can move faster than light, that is not true of the expansion of space itself. Therefore the further non-gravitationally bound galaxies are from each other the faster the expansion of space carries them, even faster than light itself can travel. This means that space at the furthest distances from us carries galaxies away from us faster than light from those galaxies can move toward us, meaning that that light can never reach us.
Additionally, visible light as it travels through the expanding universe gets red shifted into microwave radiation which can't be seen. The cosmic microwave background radiation which permeates the universe is the residual remains of the big bang over 13 billion years ago.
Quote:
That's almost certainly incorrect. Stars form and stars die all the time. We don't even know if all stars collapse into black holes when their energy dies out.
Actually, we know that all stars do not collapse into black holes. A star has to have a certain amount of mass in order to become a black hole. Our own sun does not have enough mass to collapse into a black hole but will eventually become a white dwarf.
Quote:
You've shown your lack of knowledge again. (Maybe astrophysics isn't for you.) Black holes don't need anything to keep them going. They suck everything (including light) in because of their enormous mass. They are not using up energy to exist. Where did you get the idea that black holes evaporate?
It was the late physicist Steven Hawkins who predicted that black holes will eventually evaporate due to what has become known as Hawking radiation. This hasn't been confirmed yet as far as I know, but according to Hawking, this is a form of radiation that can escape from a black hole. The article below explains this idea.
St Thomas Aquinas is needed in this discussion. His two masterpieces, the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles, basically teaches how to think of the spiritual in logical terms.
Well, not St. Thomas Aquinas himself, but his use of Aristotelian philosophy to prove his Christian theology. Aristotelianism is a philosophical tradition inspired by the work of Aristotle, usually characterized by deductive logic and an analytic inductive method.
There is no logic in this discussion. It wanders off from one point to another point without connecting the points together. It needs a thesis statement or a sentence that states the topic and purpose of your thread. You need a topic, a position and reasons to support your position. You need to analyze and state your the conclusion(s) that you reached as a result of that analysis.
That doesn't even come close to answering the question.
Wanna try again and actually address the question this time?
You may be searching for something outside the things I'm speaking on as it relates to Yahweh. If science is the study of creation/universe as a whole, then we are studying something about God. We are studying His works. So when you ask me this.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
How in the world would science do that? You can't conduct tests or experiments on God. You can't develop a hypothesis which can be repeatably tested.
This looks like a ridiculous question unless you can provide some method whereby science could do a scientific study of God.
I'll repeat myself. You don't seem to have any idea at all what science is or what science does.
....its as though you're asking me about doing an experiment on God Himself. Of course a thread like this being in the Christianity forum, we all agree this universe is God's creation, and all science is an examination on what He built. Here's the kicker though, is this current creation the same one He called "very good" when He first made it? That statement comes from Scripture. You won't find that kind of knowledge in the field of scientific work. (And all the knowledge revealed in the scriptures) This is where I argue science can be deceptive if you're a believer in what has been written. We actually might be studying a fallen universe, and attributing a fallen nature as God's handiwork.
Ultimately for non-Christians this conversation might be frustrating for obvious reasons. For those who are Christian, this conversation might be frustrating because at the end of the day, they may not care about science like that, and whether or not it agrees with what is written in Scripture. People are living their lives, and that is what most care about. Their own lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Perhaps in a certain sense because we know that the universe as we know it is billions of years old, and because life evolves. Therefore, if God is responsible for creation and for life then we know that God chose to bring about the universe as we see it today in a very long drawn out process instead of in the biblical 7 day creation, and that God chose to use evolution to bring about the diversity of life. So if God is responsible for creation then we know, thanks to science, something about how God chooses to do things.
I hear ya. If this is true, and God created through these processes, do you believe it correlates with the view of God as written about Him in the Bible? For instance I brought up how God sees death as an enemy. Yet scientifically speaking, death itself is seen as a process that is apart of the created order. We see things break down, cells lose energy.
(Something extra to think on is, ultimately this universe is not very suited for life. Almost everything in existence, is trying to kill us. This is why even if as science indicate, we came up from a single cell organism or organisms, its not something that happens often throughout the universe itself. From what we can tell, almost the entire universe is dead. There's only one planet in our solar system suited for life or our kind of life, and it has been repeatedly threatened by extinction level events. A big enough asteroid could come and wipe out most if not all life on the planet. A runaway green house effect could make our planet like Venus, and wipe out all life. What do these scientifically plausible scenarios and the unfitness of probably over 90% of the universe for life tell us about God's nature?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
St Thomas Aquinas is needed in this discussion. His two masterpieces, the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles, basically teaches how to think of the spiritual in logical terms.
Well, not St. Thomas Aquinas himself, but his use of Aristotelian philosophy to prove his Christian theology. Aristotelianism is a philosophical tradition inspired by the work of Aristotle, usually characterized by deductive logic and an analytic inductive method.
There is no logic in this discussion. It wanders off from one point to another point without connecting the points together. It needs a thesis statement or a sentence that states the topic and purpose of your thread. You need a topic, a position and reasons to support your position. You need to analyze and state your the conclusion(s) that you reached as a result of that analysis.
Just my two cents.
With respect to Mr. Aquinas, I don't think we have to go that deep with this. It doesn't require scholarly work or deep philosophic thought. My argument is science on its own can be deceptive, particularly in terms of what it speaks to concerning origin, and its speculation concerning the future. I would say this is true in its measurement with Scripture, whether we take all the stories (not just Genesis) literal or allegorical. My challenge for believers who do accept all of what science indicates and accept all of what the Bible speaks to God's character is, is that actually true? Do our scientific observations line up with how Yahweh is portrayed? I believe I pointed out a few areas where science is speaking against God's nature as written in Scripture. However, I don't think I have received sufficient rebuttal to these points, showing agreement of God's nature with science. In truth, I'm more likely to receive the answer of questioning do I believe God would be deceptive (Ie. do I believe God left behind observable evidence of a false past), or an answer like the people who wrote the Bible were primitive and wrong about many things.
Now for those who spoke to me concerning the Heat Death being hypothetical, I do find this response odd. Yes, it is hypothetical, but in reality that is exactly where the observable evidence leads. The universe is expanding and increasing in the speed of it according to our best indication. Why make the point that this is only a hypothetical scenario, as if other scenarios are just as likely? We are talking about natural forces that we see. All measurements point to this happening. It would take something out of the blue to change the projection, a "miracle" if you would. So yes, I find that response to the heat death of the universe odd. The observable laws here are as much a factor as the Big Bang itself, as much as biological common descent. The heat death scenario is as plausible as the laws of evolution would be. Will life not continue to branch out? So what's stopping the heat death of the universe? That is the logical conclusion from what we see. If you truly believe the heat death scenario is a possibility among other likely possibilities, then that right there shows how deceptive observable science can be.
With respect to Mr. Aquinas, I don't think we have to go that deep with this. It doesn't require scholarly work or deep philosophic thought.
My argument is science on its own can be deceptive, particularly in terms of what it speaks to concerning origin, and its speculation concerning the future. I would say this is true in its measurement with Scripture, whether we take all the stories (not just Genesis) literal or allegorical.
My challenge for believers who do accept all of what science indicates and accept all of what the Bible speaks to God's character is, is that actually true? Do our scientific observations line up with how Yahweh is portrayed? I believe I pointed out a few areas where science is speaking against God's nature as written in Scripture. However, I don't think I have received sufficient rebuttal to these points, showing agreement of God's nature with science. In truth, I'm more likely to receive the answer of questioning do I believe God would be deceptive (Ie. do I believe God left behind observable evidence of a false past), or an answer like the people who wrote the Bible were primitive and wrong about many things
I wasn't saying you had to go deep. I am saying you fail make a logical, coherent argument. Until you do, you will not receive a clear answer to your thread.
I wasn't saying you had to go deep. I am saying you fail make a logical, coherent argument. Until you do, you will not receive a clear answer to your thread.
It's possible that truer words have never been posted in this forum. Thanks, YorktownGal.
you may be searching for something outside the things i'm speaking on as it relates to yahweh. If science is the study of creation/universe as a whole, then we are studying something about god. We are studying his works. So when you ask me this.....
....its as though you're asking me about doing an experiment on god himself. Of course a thread like this being in the christianity forum, we all agree this universe is god's creation, and all science is an examination on what he built. here's the kicker though, is this current creation the same one he called "very good" when he first made it? that statement comes from scripture. You won't find that kind of knowledge in the field of scientific work. (and all the knowledge revealed in the scriptures) this is where i argue science can be deceptive if you're a believer in what has been written. We actually might be studying a fallen universe, and attributing a fallen nature as god's handiwork.
Ultimately for non-christians this conversation might be frustrating for obvious reasons. For those who are christian, this conversation might be frustrating because at the end of the day, they may not care about science like that, and whether or not it agrees with what is written in scripture. People are living their lives, and that is what most care about. Their own lives.
There are two different creation stories in Genesis. While Genesis one has God creating the universe 'very good', this is not the case in the second creation story in Genesis two where God has to experiment to get things right. In Genesis two God didn't know what would be a good mate for Adam and so created various kinds of animals to see if Adam could find a mate among them. When God saw, for instance, that Adam and a hippopotamus wasn't going to work, he came up with the idea of taking one of Adam's ribs and building a woman for him.
These are stories. They are not historically true. The Bible does NOT give an accurate description of how the universe and life on earth came about.
Quote:
i hear ya. If this is true, and god created through these processes, do you believe it correlates with the view of god as written about him in the bible? For instance i brought up how god sees death as an enemy. Yet scientifically speaking, death itself is seen as a process that is apart of the created order. We see things break down, cells lose energy.
(something extra to think on is, ultimately this universe is not very suited for life. Almost everything in existence, is trying to kill us. This is why even if as science indicate, we came up from a single cell organism or organisms, its not something that happens often throughout the universe itself. From what we can tell, almost the entire universe is dead. There's only one planet in our solar system suited for life or our kind of life, and it has been repeatedly threatened by extinction level events. A big enough asteroid could come and wipe out most if not all life on the planet. A runaway green house effect could make our planet like venus, and wipe out all life. What do these scientifically plausible scenarios and the unfitness of probably over 90% of the universe for life tell us about god's nature?)
Actually, we have no idea how extensive life may be in the universe. The universe is thought to be, due to various measuring methods, at least 250 times larger than the observable universe and perhaps much larger than that. We can see 13.8 billion light years in every direction which means that our observable universe is a sphere that APPEARS to be almost 28 billion light years in diameter. However, due to the fact that the universe is expanding, the observable universe is actually larger than that figure. That's the observable universe. But the universe is thought to be at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, or at least 7 trillion light years across. Details are given in the article below.
We have only searched for life in a very small part of the OBSERVABLE universe and can say nothing about the universe beyond the part of it that we can see.
Since the building blocks of life are spread though out the universe by exploding stars - supernovas, life may exist in many places throughout the universe.
Now, since evolution is an observable fact, then very obviously this contradicts the creation stories in the Bible. If God did create the universe though a big bang, and did use evolution to bring about the variety of life on earth, then despite what the Bible says, the big bang and evolution both say something about how God operates in realty.
I think YorktownGal is hitting on at least one important point: There's a lot of vagueness in the notion of "God" here. Are we talking about a young earth creationist who believes the world is 6,000 years old? Are we talking about someone who interprets Genesis literally? Is it someone who thinks every word of the Bible is true, including Psalm 22, which mentions the four corners of earth?
If so, and if that person is right, of course science is deceptive. Science has led us to the well-founded conclusions that the earth is not 6,000 years old, there was never just one man and one woman on earth and the earth is a sphere without four corners.
However, if someone doesn't hold literally to these claims about the natural history of earth that can be found in the Bible, then science isn't deceptive.
Science has been chipping away at natural claims made in the Bible for a long time. You can either say science is wrong and is deceptive, or you can abandon literal interpretations of scripture on these points. The choice is yours, but you can't have both sides.
OP, in your first post in this thread, you stated that you take Genesis as history. Science says that's false. There's a litany of scientific problems with the Genesis account of creation, so you can either abandon your view of Genesis or abandon a faith in science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God's LIFE "expands" the universe ("creation"). His life ("growth") represents the continuous creation. (There is no reason to presume that the Big Bang was a single act of creation, IMO.)
