- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Tow,
Ahhh.
But what of the “wicked falsehoods” others call “miracles” inserted thoughout your bible?
Have they not destroyed your faith completely?
Just left with creation?The need for men to prove G-d with supposed miracles shows that they need such to prove G-d. Weak. If G-d wants me to experience a true miracle to enhance my faith in Him, then He will do it. He will not just depend on words written by men so long ago. Since He knows I do not need to see these miracles, then they don't happen.
Why do you need to depend so much on what others say about G-d to develop your relationship with G-d? Is G-d that impersonal to you that you need another source to describe Him to you?
If He thought I needed such to prove Himself to me. Yet He knows my heart and knows I am not lacking in faith like you, the one who needs such crutches to believe in His awesome might.
Hi Tow,
Right!!
No need at all.
But why did the prophets lie?
Would God regard you above those wonderful men?Who can say? God sees us all as equal. They were human as I am. You seem to enjoy elevating the status of men.
Quote Well Nick, the challenge is there for you to compare and contrast the biblical account with the Hawkins-Einstein model, pointing out mathematically where these two gentlemen have it wrong. Do they have to have it wrong?
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”–Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark)
I really wish I could find that book. Anyway, if these ones are studying the fingerprints of God or are trying to figure out what God did, what is the problem?
Stephen Hawking has said, “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics.”
They are trying to put the clues together and figure out this mystery of “why”. Why did the universe come about.About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory.
He said, “It's like looking at God.”A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, “These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”
Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner, in his book: “The God Particle”, first paragraph:
In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings–none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up–we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.“A brief history of time,” (hawking) another book I can't seem to be able to find in my collection, is about the most famous cosmological book ever written, as far as I can tell.
In this book, he seems to be talking about God from beginning to end.
The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with respect and attention.
“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”–Albert.
Yes, I know he only believed in “nature” which he called “God”, but I just wanted to include this quote.
Quote Well Nick, the challenge is there for you to compare and contrast the biblical account with the Hawkins-Einstein model, pointing out mathematically where these two gentlemen have it wrong. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, by Stephen Hawking, most popular scientist on the planet, and by far, the most record breaking best seller of a cosmology book on the planet, last sentence of the last paragraph of the book:
However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason— for then we should know the mind of God. (p. 193)
Many of the greatest scientists of earlier centuries — Michael Faraday, for instance — believed that all natural laws, and not only the yet to be discovered most fundamental, provide insights into the mind of God. For these natural laws were and are, in their view, the principles upon which God designs and controls His universe.
I find these words of hawking interesting:
Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? (p. 192)That's a great list of quotes David, and points up the freedom that Einstein especially felt in using the word god in the pantheistic sense you describe. Maybe it is a product of the need to explain in simple terms and to express the 'spiritual' nature of scientific discovery. Those who post these quotes as demonstration of Einstein's alleged theism were just as lacking in subtlety and irritating to him as those who claimed him as an atheist. I think possibly he may have reacted badly to any kind of absolutism and labeling as a result of his experiences of a totalitarian regime.
It is striking how much Stephen Hawking does the god metaphor. His ideas are clearly not theist or deist in nature, but god does this and god does that…
Stuart
If I remember correctly, Einstein viewed G-d nothing at all like the G-d we see in any religious text. And I certainly don't think Einstein every considered G-d to be one he needed to talk to.
Quote However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason– for then we should know the mind of God. (p. 193) I'm wondering what you think he meant by the mind of “God” and am wondering if he didn't mean a Creator, why would he use a word that is generally understood in such a way? Was he just pandering to the masses? Trying to make his science more acceptable? Or just trying to confuse? Or does he mean what he says?
Quote “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”–Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark) I feel true science and established facts are compatible with the truth of what the Bible really teaches. It's the misrepresentation and twisting of both that has created trouble.
Quote It is striking how much Stephen Hawking does the god metaphor. His ideas are clearly not theist or deist in nature, but god does this and god does that… If he doesn't mean “God” then why does he say God? Why doesn't he just say “nature” or whatever.
Hi David
Quote I'm wondering what you think he meant by the mind of “God” and am wondering if he didn't mean a Creator, why would he use a word that is generally understood in such a way? Was he just pandering to the masses? Trying to make his science more acceptable? Or just trying to confuse? Or does he mean what he says?
You are imposing your own meaning of ‘god’! Perhaps you now appreciate how non-believers feel when confronted by the ever-changing Apologist’s Dictionary.You can rest easy that there is no hope for the theist or deist who wants to claim either Einstein or Hawking as one of their own. The former simply did not believe in any kind of pigeonhole, and certainly not in a supernatural creator, and Hawking uses the word god in a fanciful, almost-mocking-but-not-quite way.
Quote I feel true science and established facts are compatible with the truth of what the Bible really teaches. It's the misrepresentation and twisting of both that has created trouble. Well you are a master of twisting both, so you should know!
Stuart
Hi,
It is odd that those who discover little pieces of the wonderful harmony of creation are hero worshiped
while the Creator is ignored or even mocked by the earthly creation given higher intelligence,
foolish men.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 19 2008,20:12) Hi,
It is odd that those who discover little pieces of the wonderful harmony of creation are hero worshiped
while the Creator is ignored or even mocked by the earthly creation given higher intelligence,
foolish men.
Amen!Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 19 2008,20:12) Hi,
It is odd that those who discover little pieces of the wonderful harmony of creation are hero worshiped
while the Creator is ignored or even mocked by the earthly creation given higher intelligence,
foolish men.
I don't worship anything, Nick.The creation is your conclusion, but neither of these two intelligent people would agree with it.
Are you calling me foolish?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
