Home School Dads

Line


Spacespace
Message Boards
Stripes

space
Home School Dads
A Website for Fathers who Home School
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Harvard to study the orgins of life
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich,

I have no interest in making a case against or for a god. As for your evidence supporting such existance, we both know it is not scientific....science does not address the supernatural.


As to yolur comments about my arguments, you might look back at my commentary and cite a passage that you disagree with. I would be happy to argue it. As to silliness and superstition, any such comments were directed at those who attack science with non science, and it has no place in a thread that is to be about science.
Back to top
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real question is why won't you answer his question and define for him the terms? That is all he is asking for. Unless you don't want to debate him. There is also the very first question that hasn't been answered. It just doesn't make sense.

What an education this could have been by having two people who seem to be knowledgable in science with two different beliefs; one believing in Creation and one believing in evolution. We could have all learned a lot and this could have been a RATIONAL debate or discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr. Bob
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

basilosaurus,

True peer reviewed science admits participants with various worldviews. Your peer review, restricted to ultimate belief in materialism, is a sham leading to orthodoxy as succintly stated by Sir Karl Popper (see quote below). Because equivocation is rampant in modern science today, I am not surprised to find you willing to indulge in this logical fallacy.

Sir Karl Popper, The Myth of Framework: In Defense of Science and Rationality, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 34-35

“I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement…discussion between people who share many views is unlikely to be fruitful, even though it may be pleasant; while a discussion between vastly different frameworks can be extremely fruitful, even though it may sometimes be extremely difficult, and perhaps not quite so pleasant (though we may learn to enjoy it).”

Dr. Bob
Back to top
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Rich,

I have no interest in making a case against or for a god. As for your evidence supporting such existance, we both know it is not scientific....science does not address the supernatural.


As to yolur comments about my arguments, you might look back at my commentary and cite a passage that you disagree with. I would be happy to argue it. As to silliness and superstition, any such comments were directed at those who attack science with non science, and it has no place in a thread that is to be about science.


Basilosaurus,

I think my responses to your last few entries define my positions on your comments both individually and collectively. Furthermore, I cannot see where continuing our discussion will cause us to arrive at a common understanding on the matters of faith or even what science is. Would you agree?

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob,

Logical fallacy and equivocation are the very foundations of religious doctrine, creationist arguments and ID. In regards to the quote from Popper, I agree that orthodoxy does not lead to enlightenment and understanding.Popper also called evolutionary theory a metaphysical research, and that natural selection was not testable. He went on to recant the testability claims. Popper said that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse thanan open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached." He went on to say that Darwinism "is an immensely impressive and powerful theory...........The Mendelian undepinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested..."

As to your comments about peer reviewed science, or should I say my "sham", all world views are participating in science and the peer review process. It is open to all, unfortunately for those who introduce superstition and supernaturals into the process, science cannot address such claims.

I am hardly interested in a philosophical debate of evolutionary theory. Creationists lean hard on the views of Phillip Johnson, whom I have read. I find his arguments lacking in validity, and often quite spurious. If you want to, on the other hand discuss a particular aspect of the fossil record, or the geoligical column...etc. I would be happy to continue the discussion.

Basilosaurus
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich,

Claiming that there is evidence for the existence of a god or gods is little more than an assertion. Perhaps if you are willing to advance explanations for your observed evidence for the supernatural using details and a well reasoned argument, I might consider its validity. Until then, you can assert the existence of goblins, ogres, elves, and flying witches.....my response will be the same. And yes, as a nontheist, I dismiss poly, and monotheism. Now if you want to discuss some aspect of evolutionary theory, as I have invited Bob to do, I will be more than happy to correspond, however, if you want to discuss theology, let's take it to the comparative religions thread, if there is one.
Back to top
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Rich,

Claiming that there is evidence for the existence of a god or gods is little more than an assertion. Perhaps if you are willing to advance explanations for your observed evidence for the supernatural using details and a well reasoned argument, I might consider its validity. Until then, you can assert the existence of goblins, ogres, elves, and flying witches.....my response will be the same. And yes, as a nontheist, I dismiss poly, and monotheism. Now if you want to discuss some aspect of evolutionary theory, as I have invited Bob to do, I will be more than happy to correspond, however, if you want to discuss theology, let's take it to the comparative religions thread, if there is one.


Basilosaurus,

Using examples from my personal experience, I will be happy to offer explanations for my belief that there is a higher power. I wonder however, if you would accept them as evidence. It seems that you are a hardcore scientist who only accepts hardcore facts. At sea evel, water always boils at 100C. In contrast, the field of medical science is forced to work with much that doesn't fall within strict formats. Why for example do some smokers develop lung disease while other smokers do not? Why do some cancer victims respond to treatment while others with the same type of cancer, given the same treatment, not respond?

Now for a few specific examples from my personal experience. Recently, I cared for an elderly woman who was in a car accident. She suffered a ruptured spleen, collapsed lung, and multiple broken ribs. In the course of several months, she underwent several major surgeries, suffered several cardiorespiratory arrests, developed multidrug resistant infections, multi system organ failure and spent an extended period of time on life support. Many large, multicenter studies have shown that such patients do not survive. This patient, in effect, died several times but yet, walked out of the hospital. The American Heart Association will tell you that people who suffer cardiopulmonary arrest and do not receive effective CPR within three to five minutes of collapse do not survive. I was privy to an example where the victim collapsed in a grocery store and didn't receive CPR for over twenty minutes. This person was not only resuscitated, but suffered no brain damage. He went on to live for ten more years after that event. I cared for a patient dying of a fatal injury who lingered until his daughter arrived from another state. She said her goodbye and he succombed within a few minutes. This man shouldn't have lived for an hour but survived for almost ten. Let me give you an example of human behavior that I find most amazing and have unfortunately witnessed several times. Upon hearing the news that a child is brain dead as a result of senseless injury, the parents consented to donate their children's organs but first wanted the comforting presence of clergy and prayer.

These examples show, I believe, the existance of a higher power. A source of energy that is outside of mortal ability. This is what I call God, an entity that is described in every religion in some form, and among every race of people on this world since the beginning of recorded history.

Unlike you, I possess no sophisticated knowledge of evolutionary theory so therefore cannot discuss it at length. My knowledge of it does however, allow me to make basic assertions. I do believe that variations within species does occur as a result of exposure to environmental conditions allowing a species to survive and even prosper. Over many generations, the original or parent organism becomes extinct due to it's inability to survive in the current conditions. I do not believe however that the human race evolved this way. If this were the case, why to primates still exist and thrive? Why didn't the sabertooth tiger or wooly mammoth? Are they ancestors to today's tiger and elephant? Why do the alligator and horshoe crab (yes, I know it really isn't a crab) still survive and appear the way they did millions of years ago? I have two points in conclusion here. First, I cannot accept that man as he is today, evolved from some primordial soup and second, I cannot believe that the existance of the universe in all it's splendor was a completely random occurrance. There is in my impression, a very intelligent design.

In closing, I grant validity to the theory of evolution however, do not believe it explains the existance of everything. No science can satisfactorily explain the occurrance of or power of what is known as the spirit. It fails to explain universal occurrance of faith in a higher being among peoples who were not in communication. It does not explain why people die who should live or why people live who should die. It doesn't explain the peace that I see on a dying person's face just before he passes. In your proclamation as a nontheist who simply dismisses theists, poly or otherwise, you failed to offer your own explanation of these things. By dismissing theology as nonscience therefore, nonsense, do you also dismiss human spirit? Is it simply the transfer of electrons within the aqueous electrolytes of the human body? As an academic, you should possess some basic information on any subject before making judgement for or against. Your repeated avoidance of that aspect of your otherwise eloquent argument again undermines your credibility.


Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13


Last edited by Rich on Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:15 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now if you want to discuss some aspect of evolutionary theory, as I have invited Bob to do

Actually, to be truthful, I believe Dr. Bob was obviously prepared to go into a debate and asked the first questions. Guest refused to answer those questions.

I believe these were great questions to set the foundation to start the debate. This way everyone is saying the same thing. Here are the questions that I believe are fantastic. I wish I was more knowledgeable in this area.

"1. Are your comments a result of random collisions of atoms and molecules that just happened to correspond to words and sentences in the English language?


2. Or, are your comments a result of intelligent thought that has allocated meaning into groups of symbols conveying concepts, expectations and purpose in the English language?

...but we must first agree upon a few definitions. Since you probably won't accept my definitions, I will try to work with yours. The following is the dictionary definition of "definition" that avoids logical fallacies. “A description or explanation of a word or thing, by its attributes, properties or relations that distinguishes it from all other things.” Britannica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, 1962



Please give universal definitions for the following words:

- biological evolution
- information
- intelligence
- thought
- ideas
- reason
- logic

Bob Compton, DVM, PhD"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bartii wrote:
Now if you want to discuss some aspect of evolutionary theory, as I have invited Bob to do

Actually, to be truthful, I believe Dr. Bob was obviously prepared to go into a debate and asked the first questions. Guest refused to answer those questions.

I believe these were great questions to set the foundation to start the debate. This way everyone is saying the same thing. Here are the questions that I believe are fantastic. I wish I was more knowledgeable in this area.

"1. Are your comments a result of random collisions of atoms and molecules that just happened to correspond to words and sentences in the English language?


2. Or, are your comments a result of intelligent thought that has allocated meaning into groups of symbols conveying concepts, expectations and purpose in the English language?

...but we must first agree upon a few definitions. Since you probably won't accept my definitions, I will try to work with yours. The following is the dictionary definition of "definition" that avoids logical fallacies. “A description or explanation of a word or thing, by its attributes, properties or relations that distinguishes it from all other things.” Britannica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, 1962



Please give universal definitions for the following words:

- biological evolution
- information
- intelligence
- thought
- ideas
- reason
- logic

Bob Compton, DVM, PhD"


Actually Barti, I think Dr. Bob was being extremely consescending here. I took his meaning to suggest a lack of scholarship or even basic intelligence on Basilosaurus' part. My issue with how this discussion is going is the seeming lack of respect offered in his and several postings by other people. We can have our differences of opinion here, voice them, and still be respectful.

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich,

I don't think Dr. Bob was being condescending. What he was trying to get were answers to lay the foundation to begin the debate. There had to be an agreement on the rules. For an example: the card game pinochle has different rules to the game depending on who plays it. Pinochle is a card game, but before a group plays the game there must be an established set of rules that the game is to be played by. For example: Some play that if one has two Jack of Diamonds and one Queen of Spades that is considered a double pinochle. However, some play that one has to have both Jacks and Queens to be a double pinochle. The rules have to be laid down.

Science is science but it has two main beliefs associated with it i.e. Evolution and Creation. ID is becoming another major belief system, but we are not discussing this belief. That is all they are -beliefs. Each belief, religious belief, is saying their belief is right and the other is wrong. Dr. Bob(the Creationist) was trying to get to the same understanding of certain words and ideologies as Basilosaurus(Evolutionist).

Both these gentlemen have the exact same facts that science provides, however both beliefs have different ways of getting to those facts, methods of figuring out those facts, and the history of those facts. Just like Pinochle has different rules on winning the game. There must be a common understanding. Obviouly Dr. Bob knows that Basilasorus is brilliant in his belief system as obviouly Dr. Bob is in his. There just had to be a mutual understanding between two knowledgeable individuals.

I guess I just don't understand what the problem is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bartii wrote:
Rich,

I don't think Dr. Bob was being condescending. What he was trying to get were answers to lay the foundation to begin the debate. There had to be an agreement on the rules. For an example: the card game pinochle has different rules to the game depending on who plays it. Pinochle is a card game, but before a group plays the game there must be an established set of rules that the game is to be played by. For example: Some play that if one has two Jack of Diamonds and one Queen of Spades that is considered a double pinochle. However, some play that one has to have both Jacks and Queens to be a double pinochle. The rules have to be laid down.

Science is science but it has two main beliefs associated with it i.e. Evolution and Creation. ID is becoming another major belief system, but we are not discussing this belief. That is all they are -beliefs. Each belief, religious belief, is saying their belief is right and the other is wrong. Dr. Bob(the Creationist) was trying to get to the same understanding of certain words and ideologies as Basilosaurus(Evolutionist).

Both these gentlemen have the exact same facts that science provides, however both beliefs have different ways of getting to those facts, methods of figuring out those facts, and the history of those facts. Just like Pinochle has different rules on winning the game. There must be a common understanding. Obviouly Dr. Bob knows that Basilasorus is brilliant in his belief system as obviouly Dr. Bob is in his. There just had to be a mutual understanding between two knowledgeable individuals.

I guess I just don't understand what the problem is.


Barti,

Okay... I'll be hopeful with you.

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Rich,

Claiming that there is evidence for the existence of a god or gods is little more than an assertion. Perhaps if you are willing to advance explanations for your observed evidence for the supernatural using details and a well reasoned argument, I might consider its validity. Until then, you can assert the existence of goblins, ogres, elves, and flying witches.....my response will be the same. And yes, as a nontheist, I dismiss poly, and monotheism. Now if you want to discuss some aspect of evolutionary theory, as I have invited Bob to do, I will be more than happy to correspond, however, if you want to discuss theology, let's take it to the comparative religions thread, if there is one.


Basilosaurus,

Using examples from my personal experience, I will be happy to offer explanations for my belief that there is a higher power. I wonder however, if you would accept them as evidence. It seems that you are a hardcore scientist who only accepts hardcore facts. At sea evel, water always boils at 100C. In contrast, the field of medical science is forced to work with much that doesn't fall within strict formats. Why for example do some smokers develop lung disease while other smokers do not? Why do some cancer victims respond to treatment while others with the same type of cancer, given the same treatment, not respond?

Now for a few specific examples from my personal experience. Recently, I cared for an elderly woman who was in a car accident. She suffered a ruptured spleen, collapsed lung, and multiple broken ribs. In the course of several months, she underwent several major surgeries, suffered several cardiorespiratory arrests, developed multidrug resistant infections, multi system organ failure and spent an extended period of time on life support. Many large, multicenter studies have shown that such patients do not survive. This patient, in effect, died several times but yet, walked out of the hospital. The American Heart Association will tell you that people who suffer cardiopulmonary arrest and do not receive effective CPR within three to five minutes of collapse do not survive. I was privy to an example where the victim collapsed in a grocery store and didn't receive CPR for over twenty minutes. This person was not only resuscitated, but suffered no brain damage. He went on to live for ten more years after that event. I cared for a patient dying of a fatal injury who lingered until his daughter arrived from another state. She said her goodbye and he succombed within a few minutes. This man shouldn't have lived for an hour but survived for almost ten. Let me give you an example of human behavior that I find most amazing and have unfortunately witnessed several times. Upon hearing the news that a child is brain dead as a result of senseless injury, the parents consented to donate their children's organs but first wanted the comforting presence of clergy and prayer.

These examples show, I believe, the existance of a higher power. A source of energy that is outside of mortal ability. This is what I call God, an entity that is described in every religion in some form, and among every race of people on this world since the beginning of recorded history.

Unlike you, I possess no sophisticated knowledge of evolutionary theory so therefore cannot discuss it at length. My knowledge of it does however, allow me to make basic assertions. I do believe that variations within species does occur as a result of exposure to environmental conditions allowing a species to survive and even prosper. Over many generations, the original or parent organism becomes extinct due to it's inability to survive in the current conditions. I do not believe however that the human race evolved this way. If this were the case, why to primates still exist and thrive? Why didn't the sabertooth tiger or wooly mammoth? Are they ancestors to today's tiger and elephant? Why do the alligator and horshoe crab (yes, I know it really isn't a crab) still survive and appear the way they did millions of years ago? I have two points in conclusion here. First, I cannot accept that man as he is today, evolved from some primordial soup and second, I cannot believe that the existance of the universe in all it's splendor was a completely random occurrance. There is in my impression, a very intelligent design.

In closing, I grant validity to the theory of evolution however, do not believe it explains the existance of everything. No science can satisfactorily explain the occurrance of or power of what is known as the spirit. It fails to explain universal occurrance of faith in a higher being among peoples who were not in communication. It does not explain why people die who should live or why people live who should die. It doesn't explain the peace that I see on a dying person's face just before he passes. In your proclamation as a nontheist who simply dismisses theists, poly or otherwise, you failed to offer your own explanation of these things. By dismissing theology as nonscience therefore, nonsense, do you also dismiss human spirit? Is it simply the transfer of electrons within the aqueous electrolytes of the human body? As an academic, you should possess some basic information on any subject before making judgement for or against. Your repeated avoidance of that aspect of your otherwise eloquent argument again undermines your credibility.


Rich



Hi again, Basilosaurus,

I've been waiting for your feedback. I edited my last statement because checking it again, I found a few typos. It seems I can never find them all the first time. At any rate, no thoughts or comments? Should I stop checking?

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Where are the believers? Reply with quote

Hi guys,

I was wondering if any believers in God had any thoughts about where this "Darwin or God" discussion was going. It seems that the "scientists" have pulled away from the "spirit" of the subject. Perhaps it became too unscientific for them and perhaps they have nothing to say about the spiritual aspect of existence. I'm a bit troubled by the lack of support from the believing part of this readership. It seems that we get all fired up and are ready to do battle among the safe haven of Christians in our church pews but what about the society of unbeilevers? Have you nothing to say to them about your relationship with God? Are we not disciples of Christ? Have you nothing to say about your day to day walk with your God? Let's answer the question...

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bartii



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Boise, ID

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree. I was ready to jump in, but made some mistakes and got slammed and even disrespected for it. Since then I have proceeded to do some extra study. I have also talked to some knowledgeable people who know quite a bit about science and the two main belief systems i.e. evolution and creationism.

I have a lot to learn. But, the more I study it the more I believe that God, the Creator of this world(Gen 1:1) is the true inventor.

One book that I have been reading, which is very deep and a lot of it flies right over my head, is 'Thousands..... Not Billions' by Dr.Don DeYoung.

I will have to read this book a few times before I truely understand it. It also makes me do some extra study on radioisotope dating, carbon dating, radio halos, radio tracking, decay, and so on.

I am also reading 'The Chronology of the Old Testament' by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, which goes along with 'The Annals of the World' by Ussher, and the Bible. For light reading 'The collected Short Storis of Lous L'Amour', and 'The Master Plan of Evangelism' By Robert E Coleman.

What is so cool is to see and has been proven that Genesis is a Narrative book. There is so much information that God has given to us to prove that He created this world. But, science is still science and there are two major belief systems that will always butt heads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bartii wrote:
I agree. I was ready to jump in, but made some mistakes and got slammed and even disrespected for it. Since then I have proceeded to do some extra study. I have also talked to some knowledgeable people who know quite a bit about science and the two main belief systems i.e. evolution and creationism.

I have a lot to learn. But, the more I study it the more I believe that God, the Creator of this world(Gen 1:1) is the true inventor.

One book that I have been reading, which is very deep and a lot of it flies right over my head, is 'Thousands..... Not Billions' by Dr.Don DeYoung.

I will have to read this book a few times before I truely understand it. It also makes me do some extra study on radioisotope dating, carbon dating, radio halos, radio tracking, decay, and so on.

I am also reading 'The Chronology of the Old Testament' by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, which goes along with 'The Annals of the World' by Ussher, and the Bible. For light reading 'The collected Short Storis of Lous L'Amour', and 'The Master Plan of Evangelism' By Robert E Coleman.

What is so cool is to see and has been proven that Genesis is a Narrative book. There is so much information that God has given to us to prove that He created this world. But, science is still science and there are two major belief systems that will always butt heads.


Hi Barti,

Thanks for the commentary. I don't see where you made a mistake. You opened a fascinating discussion and some poorly mannered contributors stepped in. You were fine. Although I agree that knowledge is the primary way toward enlightenment, it is my firm belief that faith will escape academic support or explanation. Faith is just that; faith. Researching the Bible and paleoscientific methods although laudible, will never concretely answer questions about the origins of life or the existence of God. If that were the case, there would be no doubt anywhere and God would be all sewn up. On the subject of faith development, I truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God but hardly the inerrant work of God. I have studied it extensively on my own as well as through a four year university theology program of which I am in my third year. This activity has strengthened my Christian resolve immensely but I now have the tool of Christian reason when I study the Bible. A relationship with God comes through prayer; believers in God know this. A mature spiritual life requires one to let go of what we call earthly and meet God on Gods terms.

Science is very much a praiseworthy discipline and the basis of my career work. Without the scientific process, mankind would not be where he is today. We would have no academia. It is however not the answer to God either, as Basilosaurus so vigorously points out. Those who accept only pure science are not able to do that. Athiests, even athiestic scientists like Basilosaurus resist opening themselves up to experience God for fear that they just might have an experience that will rock their well defined worlds. A change in their existence which cannot be written up in a credible scientific journal. For them, every real experience must be tangible and provable. Sadly to me, their lives seem two dimensional. On the other hand, I believe many athiests believe God exists but have no real relationship with Him. They may be embittered by their experiences and having a naive understanding of God, blame him for their troubles. In a hateful way, they deny God but fortunately for them, he forgives and will welcome them them in whenever they are ready.

One of my colleagues from my theology course, a PHD who graduated from the highly esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology, can describe God in scientific terms which I find absulutely beautiful. Almost poetic. He likes to refer to works of Stephen Hawking, the astrophysicist, who is a believer. He states that Hawking believes that he can almost prove the existance of God by tracing the origin of light in space. When you arrive at the point of where light begins, you arrive at the origin of everything. God. Hawking won't write it up because he cannot do what science requires which is prove it. That is where he is content to let his faith prove it. Isn't this what all believers eventually do?

Pax Christi,

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Science All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Space

Space
Space
space