What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Atheists/scientists and God

Classik

Classik

Member
Would it be right to say atheists or scientist atheists ignorantly/(or unknowingly)study the handwork of God:

i. (and probably misinterpreting or representing them or
ii. partially representing or interpreting them)?
 
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The best way it has been explained to me is ones worldview. There are scientist that have a biblical worldview, that see the glory of God in the creation. There are also those who have a secular worldview, who try to prove there is no God in their findings. Just depends on where a person starts from.
 
I know majortiy of our scientists are still confused today...and in the bottom of their heart, and privately saying: there could probably be Someone behind all this. Who is the Someone. I have a book called: christianity and Evolution. Perhaps it's time to post it here
 
Classik said:
I know majortiy of our scientists are still confused today...and in the bottom of their heart, and privately saying: there could probably be Someone behind all this. Who is the Someone. I have a book called: christianity and Evolution. Perhaps it's time to post it here
Click to expand...
How do you know the internal monologue of most scientists?
 
thightower said:
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The best way it has been explained to me is ones worldview. There are scientist that have a biblical worldview, that see the glory of God in the creation. There are also those who have a secular worldview, who try to prove there is no God in their findings. Just depends on where a person starts from.
Click to expand...

The dicotomy seems to revolve around how one describes the concept of the euphemism of the word "God."

When the roots of Christianity were set down, nations everywhere had pantheons of gods and goddesses.
National character was often anthropomorphically assigned to nations by other nations, too.

A God of War would certainly have been applicable to the national character and behavior of one nation after another throughout history.
Those nations seemed to trust their miltary would save them from both poverty and defeat, for instance, and conquest was equivalent to the power we see in the worship of Mammon today.

Scientists do not usually refer to these kinds of ideas when they reject God.
They usually mean they oppose the idea of some actual human-like "man-in-the-sky" who is capable of the magic of accomplishing miracles that have no Cause/Effect relationships.

If we were to assume the God of science today was Truth, then we might agree that these men serve that principle in that they eliminate what does not seem true, and experiment to establish what does.
 
Classik said:
Would it be right to say atheists or scientist atheists ignorantly/(or unknowingly)study the handwork of God:

i. (and probably misinterpreting or representing them or
ii. partially representing or interpreting them)?
Click to expand...

yes...
 
The Unbeliever said:
I don't have to. You already said it when you claimed knowledge of the "majority of our scientists". My questions still stands.
Click to expand...
That was why I asked you to define 'most'. Acquaintance! Not just that....coworkers! Not just these. Okay? And not just in my surroundings. And usually I don't bother to convince them. They come up with the truth and hide no more...(Kick of in less than an hour: FC Barcelona vs Celtic @ Camp Nou! Will be back after the match. Hope you are a football believing fellow? :lol)
 
The Unbeliever said:
That is not what you said. Only a severe abuse of the wording and grammar employed in your initial statement could produce your interpretation.
Click to expand...
You totally lost me! I was addressing your use of monologue for 'most'. And besides you truncated the real information in my post you quoted. You changed the meaning to suit your confusion here. See your last quote/reply and compare with the original
 
Classik said:
You totally lost me! I was addressing your use of monologue for 'most'. And besides you truncated the real information in my post you quoted. You changed the meaning to suit your confusion here. See your last quote/reply and compare with the original
Click to expand...
No I didn't, you said this..."I know majortiy of our scientists are still confused today". This phrase would encompass most scientists. My point stands. How do you know the inner thoughts of most scientists?
 
The Unbeliever said:
No I didn't, you said this..."I know majortiy of our scientists are still confused today". This phrase would encompass most scientists. My point stands. How do you know the inner thoughts of most scientists?
Click to expand...
Now I know you are a worldclass comedian! The reason I asked you to define 'most' knowing you were close to forming your own opinion. I already told you 'what', comedian. :D. And when you say 'Majority' or borrowing your own language 'most', does it include your acquaintances, the people you've had or have dealings with etc? Or you think I go about converting them? And before you start another humor reread the posts above. You just made me shriek with laughter. Thumbsup for your sense of humor.
 
thightower said:
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The best way it has been explained to me is ones worldview. There are scientist that have a biblical worldview, that see the glory of God in the creation. There are also those who have a secular worldview, who try to prove there is no God in their findings. Just depends on where a person starts from.
Click to expand...

You must first realize that Science is a discipline founded upon one unprovable(n) Axiom which must be agreed to before the claim of Cause/Effect can be further examined.

What science says is that, predictated upon the exemption of explaining the First Cause, all other Effects we observe ALWAYS have a rational Cause we will and can find.

Th Christian who may accept this based upon the identification of that first creative Cause is merely attributing everything sceince explains to a spirit of the natural laws that this First Cause uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top