I personally believe it supports the existence of God. Afterall a worls created by God would have laws governing it otherwise it would be in chaos, however it appears to be designed.
Sir Fred Hoyle and Michael Jay Gould, have said "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
In my opinion, discovering a scientific law is like finding a manual to how your mobile phone works, what say you?
2006-12-13 10:49:28 · 22 answers · asked by hello 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I believe science is helping to prove God does exist, but I already know that.
God Bless and Merry Christmas.
2006-12-13 10:54:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
False. Scientific laws are constant. God is a flip flopper - look at how much his personality changed ebtween the OT and NT... And the Boeing 747 is a terrible argument. Life forms cannot be compared to non-animate objects that require a creator...
Think of it this way....you probably beleive a Creator made us because we are so copmplex, right? just like a watch or plane requires a creator because it is so complex, right? But, if complexity means that a creator is required, we must assume that the creator is more complex than that which he creates... Following that logic then, it would seem that if God created mankind, then God is extremely complex. And thus, being so complex, he too requires a creator... So, who created God?
You cannot fight that logic. You can lie your way around it, but you cant fight it.
2006-12-13 10:55:27 · answer #2 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This depends on your perception of God. For some of us, yes. For others, no. For example - I believe God is the source of all things and contains the very elements of creation. I often refer to God as he (habit), but really I see God as more of an "It". I see the universe as an orderly chaos. I see God as a neutral thing. But I also see God as sentient, but sentient in a way beyond our understanding. So I would agree that science proves God, but maybe not in the same way others perceive it. I don't see God as a human-like entity living in "heaven" and pulling out the chemistry set when he's bored.
2006-12-13 10:55:55 · answer #3 · answered by swordarkeereon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! The more discoveries they make more questions are raised than are answered. Some people embarked on a path of science thinking it would disprove or lead away from God, but they are actually proving the existence and are on a path to God.
2006-12-13 10:56:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
this idea that it has to be for one or the other is a common misconception among both atheists, and theists. if i were to say there was a god, than could you disprove that with the given information in thi bout of text, no. you can neither prove nor disprove this. no you can use sciance to disprove certain ideas about a certain god, or are you just finding flaws in the texts that have occured due to humans fulty miscopying of them? sciance and church can work with, againced or seperate from one another. religion can work againce sciance though. for instance, stem cell reseach or other such things, we all have our side on the issues, but religion can play a part in our decisions on such subjects.
2006-12-13 10:57:47 · answer #5 · answered by мΛІ€ҢΛр™ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chance analogy is akin to the infinite no of monkeys with their infinite no of typewriters, eventually writing Shakespeare - their point was that despite the odds being fantastically against it, such life forms developed anyway. You need to grasp that to appreciate the extraordinary nature of the universe around you and life on earth. Your version ("God did it") is simplistic and lazy.
2006-12-13 11:08:48 · answer #6 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your analogy at the end is apt, but does not address the point at issue. Scientific laws are completely indifferent to the concept of god, and do not offer evidence on that subject one way or the other. The quote you cited does not take into account the effects of natural selection, which is a potent generator of information: it separates things that work from things that don't, and eliminates the latter.
2006-12-13 10:54:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think your feelings on this issue depend on which side of the evolution/creation debate you're on. Supporters of creation will use natural "order" to justify their belief in the existence of a higher deity, while proponents of evolution will cite natural selection as proof that God doesn't exist.
2006-12-13 10:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by jakejc795 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've said this answer many times, and many people say the same. This is consistent with an intelligent creator but does nothing to prove its existence.
2006-12-13 11:04:38 · answer #9 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and everywhere there is perfect mathematical uniformity that
is so precise that science can predict the existence of something with absolute accuracy even before it is actually discovered.
2006-12-13 10:56:46 · answer #10 · answered by royce r 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋