M
microvelo
Guest
When I look into my chemistry book, that shows me that GOD is real. There is no way that a human mind alone could fins so much out.
- Status
C
CMSUVulcan
Guest
Strangely enough, its some of the things that make some people avid atheists. Things like the complexity and diversity of life forms that we get through evolution. The mechanism is subtle, much as I have found God to be in many ways, but you can see his hand and really all life from simpler forms to gradually more complex forms with man as the pinacle of evolution shows me the subtle hand of God quietly guiding things. As Fr. George Coyne --former head of the Vatican Observatory — once stated, evolution proves God because it is God doing a creative work in concert with his creation.
Then there is abiogenesis where chemicals were in just the right place and combinations and energy was applied at precisely the right time again shows a brilliant mind operating rather quietly. In a way that you can see, yet one you may overlook
There is also cosmology. You may recall that Fr. George LeMaitre – a Catholic priest – came up with this brilliant theory about how the universe expanded from a single microscopic point into its current form.
I am also convinced in the existence of God because of the vastness and age of the universe. Think about it, the current consensus amongst scientists is that the universe is approximately 12 to 13 billion years old. I also read in a news piece by the AP/Reuters which reported that according to those working on the Hadron community along with many other top Physicists that the universe will come to an end in some 13 to 20 billion more years. To have something as complex and beautiful as our universe last for so many billions of years means that there is a rather brilliant methodology at work. Also, when you think of how vast the universe is and that the whole thing seems to operate in a coherent and rational way suggests to me that there is a creator.
As such those are what convinces me of the existence of God. I am what some have called an evolutionary creationist or a theistic evolutionist.
Then there is abiogenesis where chemicals were in just the right place and combinations and energy was applied at precisely the right time again shows a brilliant mind operating rather quietly. In a way that you can see, yet one you may overlook
There is also cosmology. You may recall that Fr. George LeMaitre – a Catholic priest – came up with this brilliant theory about how the universe expanded from a single microscopic point into its current form.
I am also convinced in the existence of God because of the vastness and age of the universe. Think about it, the current consensus amongst scientists is that the universe is approximately 12 to 13 billion years old. I also read in a news piece by the AP/Reuters which reported that according to those working on the Hadron community along with many other top Physicists that the universe will come to an end in some 13 to 20 billion more years. To have something as complex and beautiful as our universe last for so many billions of years means that there is a rather brilliant methodology at work. Also, when you think of how vast the universe is and that the whole thing seems to operate in a coherent and rational way suggests to me that there is a creator.
As such those are what convinces me of the existence of God. I am what some have called an evolutionary creationist or a theistic evolutionist.
S
snarflemike
Guest
What I find remarkable about science, that is, about our understanding of the natural world, is that it seems to be like an onion with unending layers. Every age, it seems, is allowed to discover new and wonderful things about the world, while at the same time the next age is allowed to discover something even more new and more wonderful. The natural world seems like an endless font of wonder and beauty. There is no reason whatsoever why this should be the case, and yet it is. It aligns very well with the notion that God has created the natural world in such a way that we may know him through his creation (as the Catholic Church teaches).
Something else “in science” that leads to belief in God is the mere fact that we can know so much about the world. Why would our brains, which evolved to help us survive on the African savannah tens of thousands of years ago, be able to do such remarkable science? The distance between what we needed to survive, and what our minds can do, is inexplicable IMO. Why should the minds of ape descendants be able to discover and understand quantum mechanics and general relativity? Not to mention create all the artistic and musical beauty we have created?
And for that matter, why should mathematics, which is pure manipulation of numbers and symbols, be so perfect in describing the natural world? Many great scientists have remarked on this happy coincidence, see Wigner for example.
When I look at the world, the universe, I see the work of a Creator who delights in creation and creativity on every scale and in every area. It is super-abundant creation, creation for the joy of creation.
Something else “in science” that leads to belief in God is the mere fact that we can know so much about the world. Why would our brains, which evolved to help us survive on the African savannah tens of thousands of years ago, be able to do such remarkable science? The distance between what we needed to survive, and what our minds can do, is inexplicable IMO. Why should the minds of ape descendants be able to discover and understand quantum mechanics and general relativity? Not to mention create all the artistic and musical beauty we have created?
And for that matter, why should mathematics, which is pure manipulation of numbers and symbols, be so perfect in describing the natural world? Many great scientists have remarked on this happy coincidence, see Wigner for example.
When I look at the world, the universe, I see the work of a Creator who delights in creation and creativity on every scale and in every area. It is super-abundant creation, creation for the joy of creation.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Science tells us that everything in the universe (including the thousands of galaxies within the Very Deep Field) came from nothing (a zero-dimensional singularity independent of time - as much a “nothing” as our understanding will allow). This is exactly what science teaches in the Big Bang theory.
The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that God made the universe out of nothing. Other religions teach that their creator utilized some pre-existing primordial matter.
Science tells us that this universe is the only universe that will ever exist. Some scientists posit the idea of a “multiverse” of universes, but this is hardly accepted fact. Every scientist believes that THIS universe will never be “reborn” in any way. At one time, some speculated that the matter of the universe had not reached escape velocity, and would one day slow down (due to gravity) and eventually reform into the initial singularity, and creation would repeat itself. Nobody believes this today.
Science tells us that 96% of the universe is not made up of the matter that we see and feel all around us. 96% of the universe is made up of invisible “dark matter” and undetectable “dark energy.” Dark energy makes up the vast majority of the mass of the universe (76%). We cannot detect or observe either dark matter or dark energy, but we can observe their effects (such as gravitational lensing).
Is there anything in theology that we cannot directly detect, but we can observe its effect? This invisible, undetectable thing fills up the universe, even though we cannot detect it? Hmmmm.
Oh, by the way - science cannot account for about half of the “ordinary” matter that you and I are familiar with. We think it is out there somewhere, maybe in thin intergalactic clouds. Science can only account for less than 3% of the mass of the universe.
The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that God made the universe out of nothing. Other religions teach that their creator utilized some pre-existing primordial matter.
Science tells us that this universe is the only universe that will ever exist. Some scientists posit the idea of a “multiverse” of universes, but this is hardly accepted fact. Every scientist believes that THIS universe will never be “reborn” in any way. At one time, some speculated that the matter of the universe had not reached escape velocity, and would one day slow down (due to gravity) and eventually reform into the initial singularity, and creation would repeat itself. Nobody believes this today.
Science tells us that 96% of the universe is not made up of the matter that we see and feel all around us. 96% of the universe is made up of invisible “dark matter” and undetectable “dark energy.” Dark energy makes up the vast majority of the mass of the universe (76%). We cannot detect or observe either dark matter or dark energy, but we can observe their effects (such as gravitational lensing).
Is there anything in theology that we cannot directly detect, but we can observe its effect? This invisible, undetectable thing fills up the universe, even though we cannot detect it? Hmmmm.
Oh, by the way - science cannot account for about half of the “ordinary” matter that you and I are familiar with. We think it is out there somewhere, maybe in thin intergalactic clouds. Science can only account for less than 3% of the mass of the universe.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It’s an indirect answer: Motherhood. It’s because the auto-development of the child, especially during infancy, is universal and needs very little stimulus. Babies given food and just basic attention develop cognitively utterly on their own – as do other creatures, of course, given the same “just basic” interaction & stimulus.
It is absolutely miraculous and intricate and internal, and no baby has a computer inside of it at birth. Someone, ahem, programmed that baby – and “programmed,” from afar, and over epochs, every baby which has ever existed, to unfold . I’m telling you there’s an invisible machine inside which is time-released and which is universal to all babies and is independent of culture. It is not possible for that to have happened spontaneously; such a conclusion defies rationality.
Then you can go from there to the integrity of every other creature/species in its (also) internal development. And before we get the usual answer of “instinct,” from where could instinct arise? That is also internally hard-wired. It is not adaptation to environment. And if every species is so bleepin’ smart that each species survived by some self-developed instinct (self-created), then many more species should have conquered each other than merely “the big guys” conquering the little guys, and of course there is not really an ultimate devouring conquest because of the need of species for each other (interdependence) – some of it involuntary need, some of it voluntary need, such as humans choosing to need certain animals for food.
It’s nonsensical and anti-rational to believe that instinct is synonymous, or a part of, adaptation, because if that were true, the lower animals – who exist and sustain themselves much more on instinct than the higher animals do (therefore, with fewer “tools”) – would actually have to be more intelligent, to manage to survive and continue their speces through millennia as they have without relying on higher cognitive functions to assist in that process. And that is of course a self-contradiction. (Lacking sophisticated modes of communication, such as humans have and some other mammals.)
The food chain itself is mystically mind-blowing in its coherence. The concept of forces in the universe (physical forces such as gravity, the tides, orbits, energy fields, sound waves, etc.) Those “just happened,” too?
Further, each micro-environment is a microcosm of the intricacy of the mind of God. Those of us who visited the ocean as a child know whereof I speak. The whole darn thing fits together. The multiplicity of distinct and discrete creatures and life-forms: to imagine that each of these could have just “evolved” is to treat science as if it’s magic and irrational.
Science is one giant invitation to a mystical journey of revelation, whose end point is the mind of God. I don’t know how anyone could miss this. I have never understood this. It’s not about instruction. It’s about experiencing the logic and unity of it, and being open to the experience, which then points to the obvious.
It is absolutely miraculous and intricate and internal, and no baby has a computer inside of it at birth. Someone, ahem, programmed that baby – and “programmed,” from afar, and over epochs, every baby which has ever existed, to unfold . I’m telling you there’s an invisible machine inside which is time-released and which is universal to all babies and is independent of culture. It is not possible for that to have happened spontaneously; such a conclusion defies rationality.
Then you can go from there to the integrity of every other creature/species in its (also) internal development. And before we get the usual answer of “instinct,” from where could instinct arise? That is also internally hard-wired. It is not adaptation to environment. And if every species is so bleepin’ smart that each species survived by some self-developed instinct (self-created), then many more species should have conquered each other than merely “the big guys” conquering the little guys, and of course there is not really an ultimate devouring conquest because of the need of species for each other (interdependence) – some of it involuntary need, some of it voluntary need, such as humans choosing to need certain animals for food.
It’s nonsensical and anti-rational to believe that instinct is synonymous, or a part of, adaptation, because if that were true, the lower animals – who exist and sustain themselves much more on instinct than the higher animals do (therefore, with fewer “tools”) – would actually have to be more intelligent, to manage to survive and continue their speces through millennia as they have without relying on higher cognitive functions to assist in that process. And that is of course a self-contradiction. (Lacking sophisticated modes of communication, such as humans have and some other mammals.)
The food chain itself is mystically mind-blowing in its coherence. The concept of forces in the universe (physical forces such as gravity, the tides, orbits, energy fields, sound waves, etc.) Those “just happened,” too?
Further, each micro-environment is a microcosm of the intricacy of the mind of God. Those of us who visited the ocean as a child know whereof I speak. The whole darn thing fits together. The multiplicity of distinct and discrete creatures and life-forms: to imagine that each of these could have just “evolved” is to treat science as if it’s magic and irrational.
Science is one giant invitation to a mystical journey of revelation, whose end point is the mind of God. I don’t know how anyone could miss this. I have never understood this. It’s not about instruction. It’s about experiencing the logic and unity of it, and being open to the experience, which then points to the obvious.
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
I think from my perspective… it’s something you can only discover for yourself…
read all the books you like, listen to people, but it can all mean nothing unless you open your heart & Mind to the possibility of the existence of God…
It has been proven to me beyond any doubt that God exists, I didn’t need to read books,or watch documentaries or listen to anyone because I have this Burning belief …
If you are looking for proof that that you can put in your hands to study,
then seek a higher intelligence than what you might find here… there are things you can discover for yourself … google shroud of turin, or lourds… you can find things on the internet if you do some walking with your fingers… just need to research for yourself
read all the books you like, listen to people, but it can all mean nothing unless you open your heart & Mind to the possibility of the existence of God…
It has been proven to me beyond any doubt that God exists, I didn’t need to read books,or watch documentaries or listen to anyone because I have this Burning belief …
If you are looking for proof that that you can put in your hands to study,
then seek a higher intelligence than what you might find here… there are things you can discover for yourself … google shroud of turin, or lourds… you can find things on the internet if you do some walking with your fingers… just need to research for yourself
B
brian614
Guest
This book (C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity) helped me greatly when I was younger and had the same questions you had!
Here is an interesting article that disproves Atheism (tongue and cheek) using their own arguments:
threeminutephilosophy.com/art_dawkins.html
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
This:
To believe that life, and all that holds life together and all that makes it function on a continuous basis, is the result of mere chance, or blind, impersonal “forces” is much more fantastic a notion (much more primitively and embarrasingly “mythological”) than apprehending the true, non-fantasy physical reality of life-forms and forces and integrated unity.
An accidental universe is an assumption based on sheer imagination and intellectual contortion. A logical universe built on Order, and with Order as its unifying principle, is an inductive conclusion based on observation, combined with honest openness.
Science is a pathway to confirmation of God’s existence and His role as the all-encompassing Creator, but the seeker must have unbiased eyes to actually see the coherence of creation, a coherence which defies logic and reason to have been the result of an accidental phenomenon.
To believe that life, and all that holds life together and all that makes it function on a continuous basis, is the result of mere chance, or blind, impersonal “forces” is much more fantastic a notion (much more primitively and embarrasingly “mythological”) than apprehending the true, non-fantasy physical reality of life-forms and forces and integrated unity.
An accidental universe is an assumption based on sheer imagination and intellectual contortion. A logical universe built on Order, and with Order as its unifying principle, is an inductive conclusion based on observation, combined with honest openness.
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
This:
Science is a pathway to confirmation of God’s existence and His role as the all-encompassing Creator, but the seeker must have unbiased eyes to actually see the coherence of creation, a coherence which defies logic and reason to have been the result of an accidental phenomenon.
To believe that life, and all that holds life together and all that makes it function on a continuous basis, is the result of mere chance, or blind, impersonal “forces” is much more fantastic a notion (much more primitively and embarrasingly “mythological”) than apprehending the true, non-fantasy physical reality of life-forms and forces and integrated unity.
An accidental universe is an assumption based on sheer imagination and intellectual contortion. A logical universe built on Order, and with Order as its unifying principle, is an inductive conclusion based on observation, combined with honest openness.
How ever did I get tangled up in this Complicated Response ?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m sorry that you find my response “complicated.” It is merely dual, that’s all. The OP asked about science in particular. The title of this thread is
"What things in science make you believe in God?"
I was merely combining your suggestion of openness with the OP’s concern about science as a mode of appreciation and a path to belief. And the reason I did so is that rarely do those who look for God within the scientific world adopt the very surrender that you aptly suggest. Rather, the premise of many a scientist is to disprove God and to divinize science. With that approach, God will never be found because He will never be SEEN.
C
Classicist
Guest
The fact that the rational inquiry called Science can even be achieved is one thing makes me believe in God. A constant universe with laws and consistency in itself is unexpected in a chaotic, purely evolutionary, and uncreated reality.
On a more basic level, the very fact of existence itself is proof. We would not exist had not something infinite and eternal generated us. There is no way around it. The reality of existence itself is proof.
On a more basic level, the very fact of existence itself is proof. We would not exist had not something infinite and eternal generated us. There is no way around it. The reality of existence itself is proof.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Precisely. Science is a system, comprehended by another system, the brain.
“Evolutionary forces” are incapable of generating four things:
(1) permanence
(2) order
(3) unity
(4) harmony
And adaptation merely responds.
There is no logical way to look at it without the obvious conclusion that both evolution and adaptation are sustaining tools provided by a permanent Sustainer, without whom continuous cycles and generative/regenerative ability would have bren impossible.
Then there’s the sheer size of the universe, the variations in matter, and the invisibility of much of it to the human eye.
You see, I always think the real motive preventing diehard atheists from SEEING the God that is obvious if you study the universe honestly, is fear of humanity not being master of the universe.
Awe and terror are closely related. Think about it, OP.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
voices.yahoo.com/dna-evidence-convinces-atheist-god-does-exist-2800995.html
DNA Evidence Convinces Atheist that God Does Exist
There was this guy, by the name of Dr. Antony Flew, who was an atheist and he was known for arguing and debating with various individuals trying to get them to believe in his atheist point of view. Only one problem, he ended up changing his mind because of DNA evidence. After everything was said and done he gave in to the fact that there must be some supreme intelligence behind the origin of life. He likened DNA to a computer program. When you have a computer program it consists of codes or ones and zeros which is called a binary program. It’s the arrangement of these ones and zeros that establish the computer program and ultimately tell the computer what to do or how to perform.
a.) According to www.everystudent.com in the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. The sequencing of these letters tells the cell how to behave. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell’s actions. Within the tiny space in every cell in your body is a code three billion letters long!!
Dr. Flew understood that a computer program cannot just exist on it’s own. It has to have a creator and therefore intelligent design is the only answer. He stated that this DNA program was the most complex he had ever seen. This is very powerful information when you consider here is an individual that has a conviction about a certain concept or idea only to have his belief completely shattered or totally eradicated.
DNA Evidence Convinces Atheist that God Does Exist
There was this guy, by the name of Dr. Antony Flew, who was an atheist and he was known for arguing and debating with various individuals trying to get them to believe in his atheist point of view. Only one problem, he ended up changing his mind because of DNA evidence. After everything was said and done he gave in to the fact that there must be some supreme intelligence behind the origin of life. He likened DNA to a computer program. When you have a computer program it consists of codes or ones and zeros which is called a binary program. It’s the arrangement of these ones and zeros that establish the computer program and ultimately tell the computer what to do or how to perform.
a.) According to www.everystudent.com in the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. The sequencing of these letters tells the cell how to behave. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell’s actions. Within the tiny space in every cell in your body is a code three billion letters long!!
Dr. Flew understood that a computer program cannot just exist on it’s own. It has to have a creator and therefore intelligent design is the only answer. He stated that this DNA program was the most complex he had ever seen. This is very powerful information when you consider here is an individual that has a conviction about a certain concept or idea only to have his belief completely shattered or totally eradicated.
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
Thank you for Explaining that… The Problem of a Forum is that it can be open to misinterpretation … as which happens to myself… thank you.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Expanding on my post 24, I will include the Holographic principle, pioneered by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft. This principle says that the three-dimensional (3+1) universe we inhabit could be encoded on a two-dimensional boundary layer at the edge of the universe. Basically, the universe we inhabit is “written” upon its edge.
We are familiar with holograms, and the principle by which two-dimensional images can be combined to form an apparent three-dimensional object. But ancient people were not familiar with this concept. How could the Holographic principle be explained to primitive people?
We are familiar with holograms, and the principle by which two-dimensional images can be combined to form an apparent three-dimensional object. But ancient people were not familiar with this concept. How could the Holographic principle be explained to primitive people?
A
adawgj
Guest
The video series Wonders of God’s Creation that the Moody Institute of Science made
helped me love science and God.
helped me love science and God.
- Status