denispln » -
I'll answer this. I havent read the other posts yetbut, Ill take a stab at it to see what I can do. I also included your Title for this ost as its part of the post, but its stll a Firts for me to do this so, yay.
Question to religious folks and Christians;How does one assume or prove the existence of God if the science (at least for now) cannot explain or reproduce the origin of the Big Bang or the appearance (the evolution) of intelligent species (humans) on planet Earth?
This assumes that Religious Propel all believe in God in the First place.
I know its popular to think of Atheism as the opposite of Religion but its not. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. Theism is not synnonymous with, or nessisary for Religion. There are Materialistic Religions that deny there are gods.
As for the Question, it sudl read "How do Theists assume or prove the existence of God", as that's what you're realy asking.
Also, it depends onwhat the Thists thinks God is. God has ot be defined before you can prove that God exists.
Just a few centuries ago, the science couldn't explain the phenomena of electricity and radiation. Now, it does explain such phenomena. In ancient times, such phenomena were attributed to various pagan gods.
No, they were not.
Infact, no one in the Ancient World had a concept of Radiation, except in th sense that they knew what things liek Heat were, and they fully understood that heat was the product of burign things or other methods.
We now know it was wrong. We know now what causes thunder and lightning. Soon enough, the CERN's Large Hadron Collider in Geneva would be able to re-create and control the Big Bang itself and explain how it came about.
Well, assuming you're correct aout that, which in turn even asusmes that the Big Bang Theory is correct. There are Sientists out there who doutb it you know. And what if they replicate it and find sometign about it which reqires intelligene ot make?
Your whole argu,ent is based on analogy and assumption.
Why is it religious folks and Christians assume that scientists have to disprove the existence of God?
No one thinks this. In fact, many Scientists actually be;eivein God. Being a cientist does nto mean you are not Religious, nor is there relaly any COnflict between Religion and Science.
Religious folks and Christians cannot even define God, to start with.
Well that's not entirely True. What you mean is, different Theological conceptd and defnitions have been applied to God as both a word and concept, y different people. But its simply disingenuopus to think this traslates to no oen beign able to define God. It just means that sdiffeent peopel udnrstand what God is supposed otbe differently.
By "define", I mean defining properties and assigning attributes.
So you have not read Thomas Aquinas, or Paul TIllich, or even Ralph Wlado Emmerson? How abotu Carl jung and Albert Einstein? How about James Alison?
Plenty f peoel define od and assign attributes.
And perhaps, they have to prove the existence of God instead and not ask scientists to disprove it.
No one asks Scientists to disprove the existence of God. Plenty of Scentists beleive in God. It snot liek all Scientists are Atheists.
Further, There are hilosophers and Theologians and Scentists who did offer evidence for od's existence. Like Max Plank.
By proving the existence of God, they have to provide scientific facts (photos, pictures, videos, scientific measurements, calculations, etc.).
You mean like Max Planks Equation he usd to prove God's existence?
OK, religious folks and Christians claim that God is omnipresent and cannot be described. He created all the universe, all galaxies, all planets, all stars. Does God explain or describe that the universe is rapidly expanding (this fact can be scientifically measured)? Or probably this fact isn't even mentioned in the Bible.
So this question is limited to peopel who beleive the Bible, not just to "Religious people", who ma be Buddhist or Taoist and not use the Bibel at all.
And why make a distinction ebtween "Christian" and "Religious person"?
Also, I failt osee how an expanding Universe either proves or disproves God's existence.
I'm studying the religion from historical standpoint only and try to decide for myself what is fiction and what are the actual historical facts.
Well its a Historical ficton that Religion and Sciene are rival, competign cams or that Religious peopel demand that Scnetists disprove the existence of God.
If you can't graps that one Im pretty sure Hisory wl be mysterious forevermore.
For example, Noah died at the age of 950, Abraham was over 100 and Moses was 120 years old. These folks are pure figment of somebody's imagination.
And you know this because of their lifespans.
I'm sorry but, just declarign that Noah, Moses and Abraham never lived doesnt prove that they never lived.
Also,tis enturley possibel t live ot be over 100.
On the other hand, Jesus appears to have been the actual living person. And miracles and resurrection and all that stuff is just another myth (urban legend)...
But how do you knwo they are just Mythical or Urban Legends? It seems you've dcided ahead of Tiem that Miracles can't happen and just explain away accutnsof them.
And how do Christians make this giant leap assuming that Jesus is the son of God... the God that cannot be described that created the entire universe?
It's not such a Giant leap as it is a small step. Firts tyou accep thte Historical reliability of the Gosples, then it becomes obvious.
Im not sayign you have to acept it, I just find it arrogant to not understan dtis basic point.
I mean there are 100 - 200 billion of galaxies in the universe. There are approx. 160 billion of planets in each galaxy. And it just happens that Jesus of Nazareth in Judea in 1st century AD on planet Earth is the son of that God...
Christians aculaly belive that Jeuss was God Incarnae, and came to Earht because umans scrwwed up so badly they neded a Saviour. So, its an act of Love. Im not sure how there beign Billions of Galaxies mitigates that, especially in light of an omnicoent, omnipresent Creator.
reply
share
stylekat
9 years ago
About the question of God, if you believe in God you have to acknowledge two things which make it, lets just say unlikely...
1. What ever God you believe in, you have to believe that 99% of all other religious people are or were wrong about there beliefs in there God being the only true God.
2. A belief in a God is always associated with your location and the timing of your life. If you were born in American in the last 100 years you are likely to be Cristian, if you were born 3500 years ago in Egypt you would praise Ra, if you were born in Greece 1700bc you would believe in many gods, if you were born in Saudi Arabia last week you are going to be Muslim.
Most ancient religions were polytheistic meaning many Gods, recently religions have become Monotheistic meaning one God, I believe were getting closer to the correct number all the time. :-P
reply
share
Navaros
9 years ago
Most ancient religions were polytheistic meaning many Gods, recently religions have become Monotheistic
Adam and Eve, the first humans, were monotheists. So that kind of refutes your claim, since their religion is older than that of the pagan polytheist scumbags of which you speak.
However, you are correct that pagan polytheist scumbags did come along with their satanic religions and were dominant with them for some time. But nevertheless, Adam & Eve knew better than those pagans long before God intervened and wiped out them out.
So the "recent" turn to monotheism is not so recent after all. Rather, it is a return to the
most-ancient way of Adam & Eve.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman
reply
share