93 replies to this topic

[1984mini25]

I'm not saying God created everything.

 

But if you were a Christian, that is what you would believe 100% as anything else would be against your faith and belief in god.

[Steve220]

 

I'm not saying God created everything.

 

But if you were a Christian, that is what you would believe 100% as anything else would be against your faith and belief in god.

 

 

There are many sects to Christianity that all believe in different levels of creationism.

[pusb]

 

I'm not saying God created everything.

 

But if you were a Christian, that is what you would believe 100% as anything else would be against your faith and belief in god.

 

 

Not really. You could easily argue that the big bang and evolution was just the mechanism used by God to create everything.

[CityEPete]

Then what created god? (Broken record)
The same question goes the other way too, what came before the big bang? and I can't comprehend either!

Edited by CityEPete, 12 July 2015 - 04:46 PM.

[1984mini25]

 

 

I'm not saying God created everything.

 

But if you were a Christian, that is what you would believe 100% as anything else would be against your faith and belief in god.

 

 

Not really. You could easily argue that the big bang and evolution was just the mechanism used by God to create everything.

 

 

But the big bang and evolution still goes against that god created the world in 7 days.

[yeti21586]

How does it?

[1984mini25]

How does it?

 

The bible says that everything in nature was created by god, whereas the theory of evolution goes against it. The church strongly denies the theory of evolution, as it makes the bible wrong. (google it)

 

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

 

But personally, the bible can be considered noting more than as just a collection of primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish.

[yeti21586]

The whole of the church doesn't deny evolution, there are lots of scientists who are Christians who believe in evolution. And they explain 7days to create the Earth as seven periods of time.
Can you imagine trying to explain to people 2000+years ago about modern science and how atoms work and how particles in space collided etc or is it easier to explain it with a parable like story which people of that time would have understood?

I personally come from a family who's dad was a science teacher mum is a vicar sister is a
Science teacher and me and my brother are engineers. Science is a big part of my life but so is God

[Fast Ivan]

getting back to Stephen Fry's initial response - what do you think would be a justifiable response to Stephen from a god?

[Tamworthbay]

getting back to Stephen Fry's initial response - what do you think would be a justifiable response to Stephen from a god?

big lightning bolt

[CityEPete]

I can't see an end to religion even if some form of absolute proof was provided in the future a religious person can just tag on "but God must have created that too"  to everything for infinity.

[Ethel]

The best an atheist can hope for is to reduce the influence of god to insignificance.

 

Science asks how, and religion asks why, things are as they are. The more troublesome aspect is that leads to the opposite being true when we ask what we should do. Especially as we now have god like powers over our environment and existence.

[Tamworthbay]

The best an atheist can hope for is to reduce the influence of god to insignificance.
 
Science asks how, and religion asks why, things are as they are. The more troublesome aspect is that leads to the opposite being true when we ask what we should do. Especially as we now have god like powers over our environment and existence.

I have to disagree here, science always asks why. The pure mechanism of something is only the first stage with why does it do that usually the utterly critical question. Then there is the question of why does the bloody gel leak when I am having a ten minute break and not for the fours hours I was right by it? Why does the sample collector jam on tube 15 of a weekend run of 500 when you watched the first ten to make sure very thing was ok. Believe me why is used a lot, quite often ends up with why me?

[Ethel]

I think I'm right in this context. How is about process,why is about cause. If you get to the point where there are no previous processes, asking why becomes beyond the scope of science. Religion has the problem, for our future.
of not recognising cause as a consequence of process.

[Tamworthbay]

I think that's a simplistic view of the science side. As I said before the how bit is purely mechanical, the why bit is the key science. As an example the how of the Big Bang theory came about because of the why are the various things in the universe where they are, or the how of gravity (still not completely understood) with the why do we not fall of the earth. One thing that is very often misunderstood about science is that it's not the lab work that's science but the brain work, the lab work just gives the data you need to do the science and the question is very often why does................