(photo credit: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx)
The advances in science and technology have had a profound effect on humanity. While these advances have changed life in dramatic ways, the quest for purpose and meaning has not waned over the millennia. There’s a reason why Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life is one of the bestselling books of all time with sales topping 30 million copies.
The Templeton Foundation has invested heavily in drawing scientists, theologians and scholars from a diverse array of fields to address these deeper questions of life. This video offers a succinct overview of this project. To some, an integrative model that ties faith and science may seem Utopian without much hope for the intersection of these parallel universes. For other brave souls, it is another frontier in scientific discovery.
In my previous entry, I had highlighted that only six percent of the American public turns to scientific information when it comes to issues or right and wrong. Further, only 9 percent turn to philosophy and reason to sort out such matters.
The difference between the American public and the scientific community is apparent in a Pew study published in 2009 that reported that only 51 percent of scientists believe in God or a universal spirit, which is in stark contrast to the general population in which an overwhelming 91 percent believe in God or a universal spirit.
While 28 percent of the general population is made up of Evangelicals, only 4 percent of the nation’s scientists are Evangelical. Further, while 24 percent of the population is Catholic, only 10 percent of scientists are Catholic. Given the gulf between the public and the scientists, can science offer insights that shape our deeper convictions? Or, are faith and religion truly parallel phenomenon without a meaningful bridge of convergence? I hope you would share your thoughts.
Bruce | Jun 25, 2012 | 8:56pm
From my viewpoint, religion and science are completely complementary. Those who say they conflict or contradict in some manner don’t understand one side or perhaps both sides. For example, science cannot make any claims about God, purpose, or meaning; religion can make no scientific or historical claims. The problem comes when scientists or mathematicians go outside their inference zone and say things about the existence of God; or when more fundamentalist religions claim biblical infallibility or deny evolution or biblical/historical criticism. These kind of claims have not been the tradition of either science or the church.
Please see my request for dialog here: http://spokanefavs.com/culture/science/request-for-dialog-on-religion-and-science
Bruce | Jun 25, 2012 | 9:16pm
This is a good book review in the New York Times by a prominent philosopher David Albert about a science making claims that science cannot make:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
Prabu | Jun 25, 2012 | 10:08pm
Bruce, thanks for the post. I agree that faith and religion serve fundamentally different purposes and one does not obviate our need for the other. The link to the book review was great. Many of these scientists are very smart and I enjoy their science when I can figure out what they mean. But I do not quite under their motivation to tear down religion. What is the benefit of taking such a strident position against faith?
Ryan Downie | Jun 26, 2012 | 12:12am
Bruce already knows this, but I think it is absolutely false that science cannot say anything about God. First, such a statement depends entirely on what is meant by “God”. If you define “God” as a being totally transcendent, having no contact with reality and completely ineffable, then yes, science obviously cannot say anything about such a being. But such a being is indistinguishable from not existing and so is useless. What reason is there for positing such a being?
Second, and similarly, the reason it is so difficult to “disprove” God is because the term is so ambiguous. One can always redefine what “God” means.
I don’t think there is really any such thing as an “inference zone” and to claim that scientists and mathematicians are necessarily stepping outside of one seems just as flagrant a foul.
This whole religion business is a mess!
Ryan Downie | Jun 26, 2012 | 12:18am
To answer the main question, the answer depends on two things: (1) what is meant by “coexist”? (2) What is meant by “faith”?
For (1), obviously science and faith coexist, since we find both science and faith obtaining in reality at the same time. What I believe is meant, however, is: are science and faith compatible?
To answer this question requires an answer to (2). Based on the common usage of the term, I think the answer is no. They are opposed to one another, both in the answers they generate and in the methods they operate under.
Prabu | Jun 26, 2012 | 11:12am
Bruce has written about this extensively in the Science section, which has engendered good discussions. Thanks, Bruce.
@Ryan: By co-exist, I mean that both sides would be willing to search for common ground. I like this piece in the Times that urges both sides to work together.
<a href = “http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-god-science-shouting-match-a-response/”>http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-god-science-shouting-match-a-response/</a>
Prabu | Jun 26, 2012 | 3:23pm
Yes, Bruce has posted extensively on this topic, which has sparked good discussions.
@Ryan: By coexist, I mean that faith and science can be hospitable to one another’s views and perhaps even nurture one another. Ok, I may be Pollyanna about this. However, this recent post in the NY Times, argues that both groups might find something of value if they are willing to bury the hatchet a bit.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-god-science-shouting-match-a-response/
Ryan Downie | Jun 27, 2012 | 1:01pm
I think the answer then is probably no. Science is not really hospitable to any view. One might say it “respects” those views that are both supportable and supported, but demolishes, or else ignores, those that are not. So, science could only “nurture” something that testable or analyzable. But adherents of faith repeatedly cry foul here, insisting that faith is beyond the scope of science, even reason.
This is where many skeptics get frustrated. Not necessarily over faith per se, but over the double standard that the faithful set up. They want a truce between science and faith, but only if that means that science and reason cannot criticize or weigh in on the “teachings” or beliefs of faith. Faith seems to be the only “system” that makes all manner of truth claims, but refuses to be held accountable to reason. You just get everything you believe for free. Faith often strikes me as a whiny, immature child, insisting that it have its way with no discipline!
Dennis | Jun 27, 2012 | 8:16pm
Unfortunately for “science” many of their theories are just that, theories. I’m no scientist but I have heard enough evidence to know that much of the accepted “facts” of science fall to new discoveries all the time and some of these discoveries support ideas that would lead to a “designer” so rather than support or allow those ideas into the marketplace they are squelched by intimidation and job loss by fearful men afraid of losing their grants or the accolades of their fellow “believers”. Faith is beyond the scope of science but I have not heard that argument yet that convinces me that science has proved anything that “demolishes” my faith, far from it.
Ryan Downie | Jun 27, 2012 | 8:56pm
Dennis -
[“Unfortunately for “science” many of their theories are just that, theories.”]
I’m not sure why this is unfortunate. The term “theory” in science is not to be confused with the everyday usage meaning an idea or educated guess. In scientific discourse the term “theory” is reserved for the most rigorously tested and substantiated explanations of physical phenomena. Theories have a large and diverse body of evidence supporting them and generally have strong explanatory power and scope as well as enjoy a great deal of predictive success.
[“I’m no scientist but I have heard enough evidence to know that much of the accepted ‘facts’ of science fall to new discoveries all the time and some of these discoveries support ideas that would lead to a ‘designer’...”]
Science is an inductive enterprise and never claims absolute certainty. It is true that theories are replaced and modified when new discoveries arise, but this is part of science. Your statement is misleading because even when ideas are overturned, it is not, generally, in a radically different direction. We usually find that some original theory was merely incomplete. For instance, for a long time scientists believed that the universe operated according to a Newtonian framework. Then along came Einstein and “overturned” this with his Special and General theories of relativity. I put “overturned” in quotes because it would be incorrect to say that Newton’s ideas were just plain wrong. Rather, the Newtonian framework was simply incomplete. It provided a good approximation to reality for the scales and speeds we are used to. Einstein’s theory simply generalized Newton’s. So, science is a honing process, converging upon the truth about reality. It is not, as you seem to implicitly suggest, a body of facts being randomly overturned for completely new and different ideas.
I’m also curious what ideas lead to a designer? How do they “lead” to a designer? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. How can you say that ideas lead to a designer and then turn around and claim that faith is beyond the scope of science?
[“but I have not heard that argument yet that convinces me that science has proved anything that “demolishes” my faith, far from it.”]
And how could it? Personal faith is essentially being convinced independently of evidence. No matter what arguments are advanced you can always dismiss them, telling yourself that science cannot touch faith. You have made up your mind already, so it’s no surprise that you haven’t been convinced otherwise.
Dennis | Jun 27, 2012 | 9:44pm
Prabu,
I also believe that part of the reason for the wide divergence in percentages between the public and scientists is that they are constantly immersed in a culture hostile to God and religion. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I’ve heard firsthand accounts of reputable scientists that have been pushed out of research programs because they would dare to even allow a thought about intelligent design theory. New discoveries in micro-cellular research has fouled up the darwinian idea of things evolving from the “simple” cell. It has turned out that a single cell is so complex in itself that it is not logical to suppose it could have evolved out of non-life. I believe that it’s not truth that drives what is currently called “science”, but fear. I believe that true science that did not have the “anything but God” presupposition, could easily co-exist.
Ryan Downie | Jun 27, 2012 | 9:54pm
Dennis -
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophical position. It is also not true that it is illogical to suppose life could evolve from non-life. This is the domain of abiogenesis, a very active area of research.
Why should science include God? Where do you draw the line? Science is about understanding the physical world, but you have defined God as non-physical. What explanatory power does “God did it” have anyway? What predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable? How is it testable period?
Dennis | Jun 27, 2012 | 9:55pm
Ryan,
I don’t agree that faith is being convinced independently fo evidence at all. Perhaps you’ve heard of the book by Josh McDowell entitled “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”. There have been several highly educated scholars hostile to the claims of Christ that have set out to disprove these claims. After rigorous study they turned their lives over to Christ, fully convinced by the evidence that He lives and will be the Judge of every man, but died to pay for salvation for anyone who would truly turn to Him in repentance and faith.
As for having my mind made up, if a huge pack of alien ships entered our atmosphere, came down and destroyed all but a small percentage of mankind and took over our world I would change my mind and admit I was wrong. What I am saying is that there is no credible scientific evidence that I’ve heard of that honestly disproves the Bible’s claims about anything. Please present these if you have them. Thanks.
Dennis | Jun 27, 2012 | 10:02pm
Ryan,
If intelligent design is so easily explained away why the hostility in acadamia?
Science should included God because it is right to do so. Anti-God is a religion in itself, refusing to accept the possibility that God Himself did create the universe. I would posit that the only reason that science can even function is because the universe and everthing in it cries out for a designer. The world, and our physical bodies are miracles that only a blinded critic could insist happened by chance. I was in the eye doctors office the other day playing around with his model of the eye. It came apart and I was able to examine all the internal structures. I was in awe, not of chance, but of God’s creation.
Ryan Downie | Jun 27, 2012 | 10:07pm
Dennis -
First, if you want to play a numbers game, there are even more highly educated scholars who still believe that McDowell’s evidence is no good and have debunked much of it. Furthermore, there are many examples of highly intelligent and educated people who after studying Christianity in more depth have come to believe that it is bankrupt and nonsensical.
Second, I do believe that I can give evidence that disproves biblical claims. But, would it matter to you? You could simply move the goal posts and adopt a different interpretation of the Bible. For instance, science has repeatedly shown the absurdity of a global flood. It simply didn’t happen. Supposing you accept this evidence, you could simply claim that this story was simply a myth meant to teach about sin or something. Faith is like play-dough, you can simply remold it to whatever you need to escape criticism.
Ryan Downie | Jun 27, 2012 | 10:19pm
Dennis -
[“If intelligent design is so easily explained away why the hostility in acadamia?”]
Because people keep trying to push it as science when it is not. It’s for the same reason that a theory positing angels holding people down as a theory of gravity would receive hostility.
[“Science should included God because it is right to do so.”]
Why is it “right” to do so? “Right” in what sense?
[“I would posit that the only reason that science can even function is because the universe and everthing in it cries out for a designer.”]
Okay, you’ve posited something. Now, can you back it up? What does this statement mean? Why does science need a universe crying out for a designer to function?
[“The world, and our physical bodies are miracles that only a blinded critic could insist happened by chance. I was in the eye doctors office the other day playing around with his model of the eye. It came apart and I was able to examine all the internal structures. I was in awe, not of chance, but of God’s creation.”]
This is merely your bias. However, most atheistic evolutionists do not believe that it came about by pure chance. Natural selection is not chance. Furthermore, just because you cannot conceive of how something came to be, does not mean that God must have done it. Incredible complexity is generated all the time without any intelligent input, but instead via simple rules. Look at how complex snow-flakes are, yet they do not require a snow-flake maker. They form based on simple physical laws.
Lace Williams-Tinajero | Jun 28, 2012 | 4:28pm
Prabu, thanks for your thought-provoking piece. I believe that plenty of opportunities exist for collaboration across disciplines, yet few take advantage of such opportunities. As an academic you well know how easy it is to stay within the confines of one’s particular area of research. The field of neurotheology looks promising, tackling the question of God and the brain, though I’ve noticed that a scientist’s conclusions often reflect their religious outlook. The exception is Andrew Newberg who performs brain scans of meditating nuns, monks, and Pentecostals speaking in tongues. He is open to various explanations of the phenomena he discovers in “believing” brains. Thanks again.
Dennis | Jun 29, 2012 | 7:57am
Ryan,
I hope I don’t come across as game playing, I believe that these ideas we are discussing are life and death issues for anyone who would happen to read them. At times I’ve asked myself if it’s worth it to spend time on this site trying to add my viewpoint. I’ve decided, through prayer that it is worth it, even if at times I might look foolish and not know all the answers.
It does seem to me that a concept like “natural selection” is illogical when talking about something that has no designer or force giving it direction but happens randomly. Both “natural” and “selection” would seem to infer that something more was involved.
Also to talk about physical laws seems to beg the question of who’s laws we’re talking about. More randomness that organized itself into laws? And again, I’m no scientist but isn’t it true that our universe is slowly working it’s way down from complex to simple? Unless of course you’re talking about men, with reason and ability and will, that rearrange the elements that are already here into something more complex.
As for the flood of Noah, I’d like to compare what evidence you would present that would prove that it didn’t happen. As far as I know there is also geologic evidence that totally confounds those who would hold to that belief. I think you would have to admit that there is a certain amount of faith going into the tenacious clinging to many of the non-God explanations of the universe.
Ryan Downie | Jun 29, 2012 | 3:44pm
Dennis -
[“It does seem to me that a concept like “natural selection” is illogical when talking about something that has no designer or force giving it direction but happens randomly. Both “natural” and “selection” would seem to infer that something more was involved.”]
Why would it be illogical? It operates on perfectly logical and understandable rules. It is not random.
[“Also to talk about physical laws seems to beg the question of who’s laws we’re talking about.”]
Why are you using the word “who”? The question begging occurs when one assumes that a “who” is involved or must be involved. Again, don’t confuse the scientific term “law” with its common usage.
[“More randomness that organized itself into laws?”]
No, laws are immutable. They are abstract descriptions about the structure or our universe.
[“And again, I’m no scientist but isn’t it true that our universe is slowly working it’s way down from complex to simple?”]
Are you talking about the second law of thermodynamics?
[“As far as I know there is also geologic evidence that totally confounds those who would hold to that belief.”]
Not really. Sure there are still things geologists don’t understand, but the conclusion is not, therefore, a global flood must have done it.
[” I think you would have to admit that there is a certain amount of faith going into the tenacious clinging to many of the non-God explanations of the universe.”]
Not at all. Though, I would ask you how you are here using the term “faith”. I would also hardly describe it as “tenacious clinging”.
Dennis | Jun 29, 2012 | 6:50pm
I’m using the term in the same way you used it on me.
I’d say all those responses are examples of your biases just as you claimed I was showing mine. Laws do imply order, which would logically infer that those laws were formed out of some kind of higher process. To say that immutable laws just happened to show up out of nothing no matter how long it took is faith, or as you put it being convinced apart from the evidence. Logic and understanding are attributes of a thinking and reasoning being, so applying those to supposedly uncreated laws is illogical.
As far as the flood question, the Lord Jesus Christ, in Scripture, affirmed the flood so I have two choices, I can believe Him, trust in Him, and wait for Him in obedience and faith, or I can believe you, who can offer me nothing but a hopeless future of nothing. Can you offer me eternal Life?
Bruce | Jun 29, 2012 | 9:39pm
Dennis-
(At times I’ve asked myself if it’s worth it to spend time on this site trying to add my viewpoint.)
We’re glad you decided to join us!
Ryan Downie | Jun 29, 2012 | 10:33pm
Dennis -
[“I’d say all those responses are examples of your biases just as you claimed I was showing mine.”]
I’m not sure how my responses are examples of bias (though we are all biased to varying degrees). A lot of my responses consisted of questions. Other parts were facts.
[“Laws do imply order, which would logically infer that those laws were formed out of some kind of higher process.”]
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Why would laws have to be formed out of higher processes? In what sense would they have to be “formed” at all? You seem to have committed yourself to an infinite regress of processes. If laws must be formed out of higher processes, then it would seem, by symmetry, that those processes would have to form out of still higher processes and those out of still higher processes, ad infinitum. Of course, I anticipate that your response will be that these processes somewhere terminate at God, meaning you consider God as some kind of exemption. But then why suppose that there must be this chain of processes? It seems plainly reasonable that the laws themselves are as far as we need to go.
[“To say that immutable laws just happened to show up out of nothing no matter how long it took is faith, or as you put it being convinced apart from the evidence.”]
Again, I’m not quite sure what you mean here. These laws didn’t just show up out of nothing. This seems to assume that there was some time t at which the laws didn’t hold, but for t’ > t, they suddenly do hold. But this is not what I am saying at all. The laws that “govern” our universe have been around for as long as time has.
[“Logic and understanding are attributes of a thinking and reasoning being, so applying those to supposedly uncreated laws is illogical.”]
Still not following you. What exactly is illogical about applying logic and reasoning (or understanding) to immutable laws? What do you mean by “apply” here?
[“As far as the flood question, the Lord Jesus Christ, in Scripture, affirmed the flood so I have two choices, I can believe Him, trust in Him, and wait for Him in obedience and faith, or I can believe you, who can offer me nothing but a hopeless future of nothing. Can you offer me eternal Life?”]
Actually, Jesus never really affirms the flood although he does use the story of Noah in some of his teaching points. Nevertheless, this does not necessitate a literal understanding of the flood. There are plenty of Christians who do not hold to the literality of the flood story. I believe Bruce is one of them (correct me if I am wrong Bruce).
Other than that, why should I have to offer you anything? Why should I need to offer you anything more than possibly the truth? Of course I cannot offer you eternal life, but, then again, why do you need that? What if there is no such thing?
Dennis | Jun 30, 2012 | 9:22am
I think even secular scientist believe that the universe had a beginning so the laws that govern this universe had to have shown up then, or if not immediately then at some point after. To say that laws such as are present in every aspect of the universe, electrical, physical, weather, chemical, these are all evidences of a miraculous order that would just boggle the mind if there was not the blindness and rebellion in the human heart that the Bible teaches.
Jesus does affirm the flood in Matthew 24:36-39. It can’t be much more specific and is offered by Him at face value as a true account. It certainly is a teaching point and I hope many will learn the lesson before He returns. It does necessitate a literal understanding or the whole Bible means nothing but a piece of literature to be twisted and used for any goal or purpose (which it has, but woe to the ones who have.).
You actually are offering something when you argue your points. You have the possibility of convincing anyone who reads to your point of view. Being on this site and debating the issues is an offering of what you or I would consider to be truth. I need eternal life because at 57 I’m going to be dead within 40 years at the most, or perhaps today. I’ve been a christian for going on 30 years, but these last 3 have been some of the most blessed in my life spiritually speaking. I’ve felt more love in my heart for God and the Lord Jesus, a placed to serve and the feeling of His prescence. If there is no such thing, I still would not trade my life for anything else, and if there is, my last breath will mean my entrance into a real place with Jesus, because in John 17:24 He asked for that and His prayers are always answered.
Ryan Downie | Jun 30, 2012 | 3:10pm
Dennis -
[“I think even secular scientist believe that the universe had a beginning so the laws that govern this universe had to have shown up then, or if not immediately then at some point after.”]
Well, yes and no. It depends on what you mean by “beginning”. The standard big bang model does posit a beginning to spacetime by terminating at a singularity with the “rewinding” of time. Nevertheless, there are other viable models. For instance, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal or Roger Penrose’s cyclic conformal cosmology. But even granting the standard view, it is still not the case that the laws just show up. That is, since time itself “began” at the big bang singularity, the laws have been around for as “long” as time has. In other words, there was never a time when the laws didn’t hold.
[“To say that laws such as are present in every aspect of the universe, electrical, physical, weather, chemical, these are all evidences of a miraculous order that would just boggle the mind if there was not the blindness and rebellion in the human heart that the Bible teaches.”]
Again you are making assertions for which I see no justification. Why are these “evidences of a miraculous order”? On what basis do you deem them miraculous? This seems like a hasty conclusion. Is it miraculous when someone wins the lottery? Sure the probability of any one person winning is extremely low, but the probability of *someone* winning is almost 100%.
Furthermore, you seem to be begging the question by saying that the cause of others not recognizing what you deem miraculous is because of how depraved they are, or, in essence, because they don’t agree with your position.
[“Jesus does affirm the flood in Matthew 24:36-39. It can’t be much more specific and is offered by Him at face value as a true account. It certainly is a teaching point and I hope many will learn the lesson before He returns. It does necessitate a literal understanding or the whole Bible means nothing but a piece of literature to be twisted and used for any goal or purpose (which it has, but woe to the ones who have.).”]
This is a good verse to use, though there are still many devout Christians who defend a different point of view and do not take it literally. Personally, I don’t care. The evidence suggests that there was no such global event, which suggests that the bible is mistaken (if taken literally). You seem committed to starting with your desired conclusion and then interpreting evidence to fit that conclusion. I must go where the evidence leads and, as of right now, I don’t see it pointing to the truth of the bible, at least with regards to the flood.
I also think it is a mistake to say that the bible must be completely literal or else it is worthless. Even if it is to be taken literally, that doesn’t prevent it from being twisted.
[“I need eternal life because at 57 I’m going to be dead within 40 years at the most, or perhaps today.”]
I don’t see why this is a reason for needing eternal life. I can definitely see that eternal life might be desirable (depending on what sort of eternal life there might be), but from the fact that we desire it alone does not make it real.
[”...these last 3 have been some of the most blessed in my life spiritually speaking. I’ve felt more love in my heart for God and the Lord Jesus, a placed to serve and the feeling of His prescence. If there is no such thing, I still would not trade my life for anything else, and if there is, my last breath will mean my entrance into a real place with Jesus…”]
I’m glad that it means so much to you and gives your life meaning and blessing. Of course, the effects of a belief and its truth value are separate issues.
You seem to end here with a rendition of Pascal’s wager. That is, by believing and being wrong you have lost nothing, but if you are right you gain everything. But this isn’t exactly true, for it leaves out a plethora of other options. For instance, there might be an afterlife as you say, except that perhaps it is some other God who is the real God, say Allah. If this is the case, then you could still lose everything.
Bruce | Jun 30, 2012 | 9:35pm
(Nevertheless, there are other viable models. For instance, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal or Roger Penrose’s cyclic conformal cosmology.)
These are untested, unproven, hypothetical mathematical models. Until there are scientific tests run, they have just as much validity as a literal reading of the Bible. I don’t see any difference between you and Dennis.
(But even granting the standard view, it is still not the case that the laws just show up. That is, since time itself “began” at the big bang singularity, the laws have been around for as “long” as time has. In other words, there was never a time when the laws didn’t hold.)
You have no evidence or proof that this is the case. In fact, there are many prominent philosophers such as David Albert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert) who will claim this may not be the case at all. You have no proof that the laws of physics existed before the big bang. You have no proof that time existed before the big bang. You have no proof of anything like that at all.
For someone who claims to be antagonized by faith, you sure have an awful lot of it!
Ryan Downie | Jul 1, 2012 | 6:38pm
[“These are untested, unproven, hypothetical mathematical models. Until there are scientific tests run, they have just as much validity as a literal reading of the Bible. I don’t see any difference between you and Dennis.”]
I am merely pointing these out as options on the table and that it is not as easy as just claiming that the universe definitely had a beginning. So, I think you misunderstood the purpose for my bringing up these models.
However, I think it is false to say that they are untested and merely hypothetical. The fact is, we don’t know what happened very close to the “singularity”. In this sense, if the Hartle-Hawking proposal explains everything the standard model does, and it is only a matter of whether there is a singularity or not, then it is perfectly viable. As for Penrose, there are some claims (albeit disputed) that there is evidence in favor of his proposal in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
As for being “unproven”, I concede, but would hasten to point out that nothing in science is “proven” in the strict sense. In fact, Einstein’s Relativity theory is not “proven” either. But this stems from the inductive nature of science and so is not a problem.
[“You have no evidence or proof that this is the case. In fact, there are many prominent philosophers such as David Albert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert) who will claim this may not be the case at all. You have no proof that the laws of physics existed before the big bang. You have no proof that time existed before the big bang. You have no proof of anything like that at all.”]
I believe you have misread my position for I have claimed none of these things. I explicitly said the opposite. I don’t believe “time” existed before the big bang, which is why I specifically stated that time “began” at the big bang. Given this, there is no sense to the idea that the laws of physics existed *before* the big bang, since “before” is a temporal term.
Tara | Jul 31, 2012 | 4:21am
Impossible to please God wituoht faith for The Work of God is to believe in The One who was Sent and Sanctified for Justification comes by grace and faith as fruits of The Spirit Poured out on all peoples everywhere.For those who bear these fruits in the ingathering sharings,there is no justification by law’ of lesser of the darkness that rules’ the night’. No confidence is to found in the flesh is Paul, for one was not to eat the flesh of certain animals as the food for My Words are Spirit and Truth.Bread of idolness is written and do nothing’ Egypt as worth less’.For how will you’ believe if you’ do nothing’ to gain honor and love with God but receive the praise and acceptance of each other for those who receive You receive Me? For those that are for Me are not against Me, God With Us. Therefore, Blessed are you when peoples say falsely for My sake for Great is the reward as with Solomon whose wisdom and love was placed in the testings with all sorts of difficult questions. Easier for the Camel to be bathed by The Prophet and for the Locusts Honey to be eaten in Prophecy, than for the rich, for to whom much was given, much more will be required in the next set of classes and tests.These swallow the camels for others is written in straining the plagues of Moses.
David | Jul 31, 2012 | 4:21am
Salvation is only by faith, but it is a faith THAT works. Salvation is dependent on bnmcoieg one with YAHUSHUA, and if He and I are one, He will work in me to will and to do His good pleasure. You can’t take one thought out of context and throw the rest of scripture out, and think you have the true religion.
Add Your Comment