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.
I don’t see how I am saying that. Be open ended, let the Truth-cards fall where they may. I don’t see how anything discovered is a problem. Truth is truth, no one can deny that.
You can't say this and truly believe in science: "A scientist searches for truth in the world. Christianity presents a God who is Truth itself, the source of all truth. The Prime Mover of why anything exists at all." You've already decided what the truth is.
That's precisely why I'm saying you don't understand science.
I think the reason you don’t understand how an intelligent person can go from The Uncaused Cause, The Unmoved Mover, etc., to a personal God is twofold:
- you pick the worst possible interpretation of “Yahweh” and assume that is what everyone proposes
- you ignore the works of Aquinas and others, which offer a rational chain of arguments, that build from The Unmoved Mover etc., to a more comprehensive definition of a logical god that doesn’t contradict reason.
A scientist searches for truth in the world. Christianity presents a God who is Truth itself, the source of all truth. The Prime Mover of why anything exists at all. A scientist searching for truth, in a sense wants to understand this source.
Christianity says that the purpose of intellectual creatures (Man), is intellectual union with God (aka Eternal Life / Beatific Vision). With God defined as the one and only Eternal, Infinite, source of all that is, there is no conflict with the path of science, and the path of faith, both seeking understanding and union with the eternal and infinite source of all being and truth.
Christianity also offers something that other religions do not offer, which is The Incarnation of The Word, Jesus. Jesus is the bridge between Man and God, the Man-God, the union of the finite and the infinite. The Path, The Way, to cross the divide between the finite and the infinite.
No, I do get the idea of 'God' used by scientists (or anyone else) who just refers to the everything that works, whether or not they think it is intelligent or not.
Whether they link it to any of the christian claims is another matter altogether. I think that you might find the man -god link between the human and the divine is more common to other religions than you might suppose.
I think the reason you don’t understand how an intelligent person can go from The Uncaused Cause, The Unmoved Mover, etc., to a personal God is twofold:
- you pick the worst possible interpretation of “Yahweh” and assume that is what everyone proposes
- you ignore the works of Aquinas and others, which offer a rational chain of arguments, that build from The Unmoved Mover etc., to a more comprehensive definition of a logical god that doesn’t contradict reason.
Except Aquinas is not rational. That is the problem.
One of the problems. Another one is the 'Double Darwin' a well -known and celebrated apologetic i just invented to make it sound Authoritative.
These old Geniuses were smart enough, but they couldn't answer the question of creation without postulating a god. The best that you could be was an irreligious Deist. There was no other answer to "Who made everything, then?" True, Aquinus and the rest didn't Want to find an alternative, but that didn't alter the fact that there was no alternative. "God" had to be the answer. And a total monopoly on 'Which god?' by Christianity made that a non -issue, too. Even the atheist saint Jackson, while ripping out all the bits of the Bible that he didn't like and calling the rest the best moral guide in the world had no alternative to the Existence of Everything than 'God'.
But Darwin changed all that. Dot only was Genesis not needed to explain biological origins, it now wasn't even correct. That at least was the theory.
And there's the 2nd part of the problem. Darwin thought that the incidental evidence of morphology and the mechanism of natural selection was the explanation, but he didn't have the proof. He knew that the transitional fossils ought to exist, but there weren't any. He knew that natural selection worked, but he didn't know how. This was an 'Unknown' but not a gap for god. It was a scientific theory that hasn't produced the hard evidence yet. Well, the Transitional forms have been found (and never mind the reiterated religious denial) and DNA mutation provides the mechanics of natural selection.
Aquinas and Galileo and Newton and all those other smart guys were clever and even logical enough, but they didn't have the science. They didn't have Darwin, and that really is the watershed that made God - as prof. Hawking's autospeak said "Un- nesser- sarry". While 'Evolution' isn't why atheists disbelieve in God (it wasn't the reason that Darwin disbelieved in God; it was the Problem of Evil did that) but it is understandable and fitting that Genesis literalism spends so much time trying to debunk evolution, and why Darwin's day is why we Baby - eating satanic pondslime assemble under the ol' Flag, put our hands on our heads (the heart only pumps blood, you know) and sing the atheist anthem.
It doesn't just stop there, of course. Cosmic origins is still an Unanswered Question as indeed is Abiogenesis (though that Q is Answered in theory, but the proof is lacking). Hawking claimed that God wasn't necessary to account for Cosmic Origins and maybe he was right, but that still isn't clear yet - at least to me - though I am groping towards an explanation and better one than an invisible complex being that didn't need to come from anywhere.
No, appeal to the old savants, Geniuses and Authorities even if they were logical and (more to the point unbiased), is invalid apologetics simply because they hadn't the information that Post - Darwinists had, and even Darwin didn't have the information that we have now. And later generations will (I trust) have the information that will close the last Gaps for God that are already closing fast.
Already the information we have now shows forth the wonder of Nature, and is not an advertisement for any god, let alone the god of the debunked Bible. The information that shews forth the validity of atheism is freely available and those who deny it are, to use Paul's own words "Without excuse".
Here Endeth the lesson . Silver in the tray please..
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-16-2019 at 11:30 AM..
No, I do get the idea of 'God' used by scientists (or anyone else) who just refers to the everything that works, whether or not they think it is intelligent or not.
Whether they link it to any of the christian claims is another matter altogether. I think that you might find the man -god link between the human and the divine is more common to other religions than you might suppose.
My post was for the original poster, who asked “how do scientists get from Kalam to Yahweh”.
One of the problems. Another one is the 'Double Darwin' a well -known and celebrated apologetic i just invented to make it sound Authoritative.
[...]
Already the information we have now shows for the wonder of Nature and is not an advertisement for any god, let alone the god of the debunked Bible. The information that shews for the validity of atheism is available and those who deny it are, to use Paul's own words "Without excuse".
Here Endeth the lesson . Silver in the tray please..
Evolution doesn’t “explain” anything. It just describes the process that happened over time. The theory of evolution is no threat to fundamental theology.
Stopping the search for the underlying truth of everything, and settling for “the wonder of Nature”, falls short of any ultimate explanation of why anything exists at all.
St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change? - St. Augustine, Sermo 241, 2:PL 38,1134.
Evolution doesn’t “explain” anything. It just describes the process that happened over time. The theory of evolution is no threat to fundamental theology.
Stopping the search for the underlying truth of everything, and settling for “the wonder of Nature”, falls short of any ultimate explanation of why anything exists at all.
St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change? - St. Augustine, Sermo 241, 2:PL 38,1134.
Evolution explains much more than Religion does. Religion doesn'r 'explain' anything. It doesn't even look for explanations. It just sticks 'Gid dunnit' into every question and scuppers any further question.
It is only by putting religion aside and following up the question to find the explanation. Aquinas has his reasoning screwed from the start. Effectively he is saying 'See here is beauty. How to explain it other than Goddunnit?' This explains nothing. Not only does it not explain the origins and workings of the things we find beautiful, it doesn't even explain beauty. What is this sense of beauty that we feel? What is the difference between the Beauty of a massive mountain with the top covered in stormcloud and a couple fluffy kitties ripping a toy mouse to shreds? The emotional responses are really quite different, but the blunderbuss term 'Beauty' is applied to both and that's inadequate enough. What's worse is that the believers, like Aquinas, have their undoubtedly good brains flipped to Off by 'God' as an non explanatory explanation so that they don't even get to consider the questions.
A real scientist is totally open-ended in his thinking.
A scientists is open ended in his thinking in a branch, where he can get grant for his research. Otherwise, he becomes a hermit bagging for funds from his family and doing some shady experiments in his basement. he may be another (pick your fancy for name) but nowhere far will he get, as The Science is impenetrable Bastion that stands on principles, established by its Holy Fathers and not letting free thinking open enders in.
And those who provide grants, they order the music.
Then what conclusions do you draw about scientists who live in a nation where Christianity dominates, has huge influence and limitless amounts of money? obviously that their results will have to be a Christianity -friendly as possible. Which seems to be that they say nothing about it at all.
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.
a well -known and celebrated apologetic i just invented to make it sound Authoritative.
unbiased), is invalid apologetics simply because they hadn't the information that Post - Darwinists had, and even Darwin didn't have the information that we have now. And later generations will (I trust) have the information that will close the last Gaps for God that are already closing fast. 
