Faith vs Science

[Guest]

..... Could it be science might be finding the tools that God used in creating heaven and earth?

No Way!

>>>>>()<<<<<

Science Deals Only In That Which Is Observable. Measurable And Reproducible

When A Scientist Speculates On Origins, Values And Destinies He Or She Ceases To Function In Science

Instead He Or She Dishes Up A Religious Or A Philosophical Viewpoint (Same Thing!)

Religious Or Philosophical Viewpoints Are Not Subject to Observation, Measurement And Experimentation

In The Case Of Believers Their Statements Of Beginnings, Values And Destinies Are Limited To The Truth Found In God's Holy Book

All Other Folk Have No Limit To Their Speculations Except For The Desires Of Their Heart

And The Amount Of Ink And Paper Or Bandwidth On Hand

And The Free Time To Noddle

God's Word Even Tells Us What Is On Our Natural (Sinful) Heart

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

Proverbs 8:36

Giving Us Insight Into What Is Naturally (Sinfully) The Condition Of Our Heart

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Jeremiah 17-9

Leading Us To The Certain Wrath To Come

"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

John 3:35-36

Or To Our Only Hope For Redemption

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

John 11:25

For Only Jesus Saves!

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

John 14:6

The Bible Tells Me So

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16

[oldzimm]

Thank you gentlemen for your thoughts, I got one yea and one nay, I thought this would be an interesting question to post in this thread.

I agree Fresnojoe science only deals in what is observable, measurable and reproducible. If a scientist can't come up with a answer, the last thing he or she will agree to is the creation was by the hands of God. I think that was the point RunningGator was trying to make.

The Holy Bible is the truth, the living truth as God is our living God. The Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth, he created everything and he is still creating with his will and the tools he chooses to use.

I will give an example of a tool God used to create. I live in Pennsylvania, the beautiful Allegheny Mountains run through our state. Scientist state that these mountains were made by a glacier that came down from the north, and I believe they are right. I also believe (scientist won't say this) the glacier was the tool God used to create these beautiful mountains, it was Gods will for it to happen. God is the giver of all good and blessed things.

Edited March 11, 2009 by oldzimm

[oldzimm]

Sorry I hit the wrong button and posted twice and being new to the 21st century (computer) I couldn't find the delete button.

Edited March 11, 2009 by oldzimm

[ParanoidAndroid]

Of course they are, that is what science should be doing. The biggest problem with science today is it starts from a naturalistic point of view and anything that does not fit into that point of view is rejected, instead of letting the evidence lead where it really goes.

This is how we arrived with evolution being so accecpted.

Welcome to the forum by the way!

Science by its very nature cannot comment on God, one way or the other. For lack of a better term, science would be "agnostic" in terms of God. It simply views the evidence we have and then arrives at a naturalistic conclusion. Science cannot, and should not, incorporate God into their reasoning.

I'm curious though about your own personal opinions on this - where do you think it is that the evidence really leads?

[ParanoidAndroid]

Science cannot comment on the nature of God, that I agree with. Science does not need to be limited by naturalistic conclusions; this is a false limitation that has been placed upon science in the last couple of hundred or years. If the evidence points towards someone supernatural, then that is where it points and it should not be ignored just because of where it points.

Do you agree though that it could also be argued along the lines that seeing a "supernatural" answer is simply another way to say that we don't know how it happened? After all, back in ancient times, people blamed failed crops on the power of the gods, they blamed thunder storms on the power of the gods - they didn't have the scientific explanation to know about weather patterns, pressure systems, etc. So they attributed it to gods.

Today, if the naturalistic answer leads to a dead end, it might be seen that putting it down to a supernatural force is just a throwback to our days when we put everything we didn't understand as the will of the gods.

Just a thought. As to the link you provided, I'll have a look through it some time soon. I'll try and see if I can get that book you mentioned also. As for your comment on the evidence leading somewhere otehr than the "something out of nothing" view, I don't believe that is science's view. It simply deals with the event. If you want to believe there was a creator behind it, Science cannot contradict you! Right?

[nebula]

Do you agree though that it could also be argued along the lines that seeing a "supernatural" answer is simply another way to say that we don't know how it happened? . . . As for your comment on the evidence leading somewhere otehr than the "something out of nothing" view, I don't believe that is science's view. It simply deals with the event. If you want to believe there was a creator behind it, Science cannot contradict you! Right?

PA -

Do you personally believe the Earth and Universe to have been fashioned by a Creator?

[ParanoidAndroid]

no, I dont agree. If evidence points to something outside the natural realm then that is where it points.

It does not lead to a dead-end unless you have limited yourself to certain answers prior to looking at the evidence.

Ok, thanks for answering. Just to clarify once more (sorry for the multiple clarifications), if science cannot and should not provide answers on God, then how is it that a scientific answer can lead to supernatural results?

Thanks in advance

[nebula]

PA -

Do you personally believe the Earth and Universe to have been fashioned by a Creator?

I'm actually going somewhere with this question, so would you please answer?

[ParanoidAndroid]

PA -

Do you personally believe the Earth and Universe to have been fashioned by a Creator?

I'm actually going somewhere with this question, so would you please answer?

Hi nebula,

Sorry I missed your question by mistake (skipped over it somehow). Yes, I fully believe that the earth, the universe, and everything in it has been fashioned not just by a creator, but by The Creator as detailed in the Bible.

Apologies for missing your post.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Just because science cannot tell us the exact nature of God does not mean it cannot point towards a creator of some sort. Once you have that you use other methods to determine the nature of that creator.

Think of it like police work. Science can lead to some answers in a crime (i.e. DNA, finger prints, etc) and then the police look at physical evidence and even circumstantial evidence and combine it all into solving the crime.

This same methodology can work in determining the nature of the creator, as long as you don