I know these do not go together , they are in fact the opposite. This causes so many discussions over the existence of god. Science can not prove the existence or the non-existence. In a discussion , believers can only go so far with the , why and how questions. The bottom line of such discussions usually end up at a big bang moment , the creation of our universe. Science says it all started with an irregularity , from that moment on there are still different theories, but all agree that from that moment on , evolution started .The most believed theory, is string-theory , what basically says that the most fundamental building block of this entire universe is a string of energy ( witch in the way it vibrates makes up an other basic particle , in the way those particles work or influence each other , makes up a an electron/proton/neutron,…,molecule,…etc…evolution )
If I would ask you , the smartest man of the last century ?Einstein, surly comes to mind. Even after more than 100 years of technological evolution, we still go by his laws. The first theory he proved to be law is his famous , theory of relativity, what basically explains that , everything depends on how you look at it. If the scientist would consider that someone created that first string of energy , that became an electron ( - ) a proton (+) and a neutron ( neutral ) , he could see that all the peace’s of the puzzle would fit. With this viewpoint , a science-minded person could see an all creator.
In this writing, I am not going in to my personal experience, but with this point of view , I have seen god in everything , everywhere and all the time. I have found inner peace, and the amazing powerful beauty of the lord
Welcome and good to have you here, Jan. I think that while science and faith have radically different viewpoints, in the end they are very much interrelated to Christians, and integrating their differences is important. Faith without science, which I will loosely translate as being observations about the physical world, becomes fantasy, and science without faith lacks meaning and purpose, becoming an empty exercise.
Extremists , in whatever viewpoint, are always hesitant in changing there opinion. An open mind and will is needed to reunite different sides. The point of Christianity is to spread his love and create peace. As a science minded person you have to be open minded, as a Christian you have to have a loose interpretation of the bible on some points
That’s not how general relativity works. For example, it doesn’t matter how you look at light, it is always travelling at the same speed (in a vacuum) for everyone. Einstein’s theory isn’t some form of post-modernism where all beliefs are true.
It is also worth noting that Einstein’s theory modified Newton’s laws which had been around for hundreds of years. It could be that Einstein’s theory will be modified in the future.
If you look at the speed of light, are you sitting still or are you moving, are you moving towards the light source or away from it , and at what speed are you moving. Everything is relative . Einstein found the best explanation: if a young beautiful lady comes sit on your lap for 5 min. It seems like 2 min. , if a fat old lady comes sit on your lap for 5 min. It seems like 20 min. ( quoted from his biography)
The point I wanted to make, is that everything depends on how you look at it. If you really believe in something, you will look facts that support your view. The only reason I posted this , is because I encountered several discussion on this topic and hoped to help someone else with this point of view
This is definitely a human foible that we all suffer from to one degree or another. I completely agree with you there.
In the real world, not everyone can be right. There can be Globe Earthers and Flat Earthers, but both of them can’t be right. So how do we determine who is right, who is wrong, or if both are wrong? If I really, really believe the Earth is flat, does the Earth flatten out in order to obey my beliefs?
It is simply not true that relativity says all things are relative. That is more of a philosophical meme. In many ways, what relativity is saying is much more radical. It is more specific to space and time but since these things are so fundamental to our understanding of reality the alteration relativity makes to these is hard for most people to wrap their head around.
So what does Einstein’s theory say is relative? Velocity is the easiest to understand but even there, it is not quite that simple. Let’s say you have a bag of 30 marbles and a space ship with an unlimited supply of energy and reaction mass. You can drop a marble and accelerate away from that marble to half the speed of light 150000 kilometers per second. Now you drop a second marble and accelerate away from that marble in the same direction another half the speed of light 150000 kilometers per second more. You can do this again and again until you run out of marbles.
So in one sense it seems you can travel as fast as you like. In other ways this is not so. If you look back at the first marble you dropped, it will not moving away from you at 15 times the speed of light as you might expect if you add up all those accelerations. In fact the first 10 marbles will be moving away at a speed very close to the speed of light (to 10 decimals or more). Though if you had left an observer behind at each of those marbles then each would see both of the nearest marbles moving away from them at half the speed of light in opposite directions. (The last marble you dropped moves away at half the speed of light and the one before that is moving away at 8 tenths the speed of light)
On the other hand you will still get to your destination as fast as you like because lorentz contraction will shrink the distance. After those 30 marbles you will be going fast enough to cross the galaxy in only a few days. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of years will still pass at home while you do so, because those at home never see you going faster than the speed of light.
So what else does the theory say is relative? One of the most important yet difficult to understand is the relativity of simultaneity. Most people think of the universe like the film in a movie camera as a series of snapshots strung together. But Einstein’s theory shows us that this is not the case at all. If you insist on making such a movie then the snapshots of what is considered simultaneous will depend on how fast you are moving. This is why the theory divides past present and future in a different way using a cone representing the speed of light radiating in all directions from your current point in space and time, or coming from everywhere at the speed of light to where you are. Everything inside the cone going out (slower than light) is the future, while everything inside the cone coming in (slower than light) is the past. Everything else can considered simultaneous in some sense. On Mars (currently .57 astronomical units from us), for example, this is a 9.5 minute period of time. At Jupiter (currently 5.6 astronomical units away), this a 93 minute period of time.
What does this mean??? Well the easiest consequence is the delay in communication. Talking to people on mars, you will have to wait 9.5 minutes for a reply and talking to someone in orbit around Jupiter you will be waiting 93 minutes. Any faster than that would be mathematically equivalent to getting a reply before you said anything.
How can they be opposite when they are not even playing the same game. There is really no competition. For what science discovers it is only reasonable to accept its conclusions. For what religion claims you can have no reasonable expectation that others will accept these as true.
But while science is definitely in a superior epistemological realm. It is not life. Not even close. Not even possible. Science requires objective observation. Life requires subjective participation. Religion seeks to address the latter – at least that is the only times when I can see religion doing anything of value.
I wouldn’t say that.
A lot of physicist like this idea. It is very attractive. But without any proof we cannot really say that we believe it. Not only is there no proof despite looking for this quite eagerly, but there are many other problems as well. We like it, but we cannot say that we believe it. Something important is missing from the puzzle, right gob smack in the middle of it.
Standard model? Yeah we believe in that one. It is consistent. It works. And evidence is quite abundant as well as very very very accurate!
Definition of faith is needed. I think that a good general definition is that faith is putting trust in something. It is an independent variable relative to science or reason. Science involves having faith in various things. Some faith is reasonable, some is not. For example, science generally requires faith in the reliability of previously reported scientific results. However, when you get into a field, you are likely to realize that certain people do not produce as reliable work. For example, there are a number of weaknesses in the major online databases that are often uncritically used as a source of fossil dates for molecular clock dates, which means that the “calibration” is often bogus. Likewise, certain religious claims are more credible than others.
You led me to the realization that in my previous response I equated “faith” with religion – something which I generally oppose, even if it made more sense in the context of the OP.
Faith is far more universal than religion. Every use of logic requires putting your faith in the premises from which you draw conclusions. And science requires faith in its methodology – which includes a faith that the evidence is not arranged by some malign force seeking to deceive us. This is a reasonable faith to be sure and thus many seek to distinguish this from the faith employed in religion which is not quite as reasonable – at very least we can say it is a bit more challenging to our capacity for faith.
One could think some atheists have faith in that to be true, which is why they deny having faith
Faith is to trust in something to be true in the absence of proof. it is essential for a human mind to have that capacity, in order to progress in an unknown environment.
It can be fun to check out those who declare themselves to be idiots by claiming that faith is to believe something in the absence if evidence and they do not do that because they are no idiots. They clearly believe that one can form a belief without evidence so you might ask them for any evidence they have for that belief to avoid to look like an idiot.
In a cognitive process evidence is that what causes beliefs.It is proof that terminates the belief as it provides certainty, thus trust, e.g. one’s own personal commitment is no longer required.
Evidence that is proof should be called that, but some people are a bit confused about that. If you believe that A is dead, finding his dead body his dead body is proof for that hypothesis. If however you believe A has been murdered, his dead body is evidence for your belief but not proof. Even if he had a bullet hole that would not be proof that he had been murdered as you would have to establish that he was alive when he was shot.
So the problem of denial of evidence based faith by atheist scientists is not that there is no evidence, but their rejection of the evidence or more precisely their inability of intellectually engaging with the evidence other that insisting on for example a physical snake that was speaking english instead of comprehending the poetic language used to put a complex issue into a form that was comprehensible to the illiterate as well as the intellectuals. Guess our forefathers could not imagine how illiterate modern day intellectuals would become.
So when it comes to the crunch point of creation you might want to go with the description from John that in the beginning was the word and that the universe was spoken into existence. For a child the story of creation might make it think of images familiar to itself and imagining God to sit by the riverbank making mud pie humans. To insist on such interpretation as a grown up is a bit embarrassing, but materialists often miss out on metaphysical reality and confuse the supernatural with the unnatural. Why would a God that speaks our universe into reality need to create physically? Where does the energy come from? What was first,the energy or the matter. If we look at the energy generated by physical events, albeit the immense power they can release, it is nothing to the power of the word.
So I share your viewpoint as a scientist and Christian that the energy that generated our reality is a metaphysical power, and my Christian worldview allows me to understand that reality in a logical and coherent way allowing me to have a meaningful interaction with reality. And if you found that inner peace in the beauty of the Lord’s creation count yourself lucky, particularly if you can hold on to that when times get tough and you go for example through the death of your loved ones. If you can remain thankful for the time you had with them instead of complaining about not having had enough time you are on the right way. After all, the secret of happiness is not to be satisfied with what you have got, but to be thankful for what you have got. The difference between those two approaches to life is essential.
