|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Discussions elsewhere indicate that many of us want to type about Christ. Here is a great place to write your views
|
|
|
If science could prove they were possible, they would not be miracles, by simple definition. A miracle is what is not possible by usual means (i.e., against nature); science deals with usual means (i.e., nature). If you wish to put all of your faith in science, you should perhaps reject miracles. Being rational, however, is not necessarily the same thing as being scientific. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. If we are to be purely rational, then, we can only say "If there is a God...", or "If there is not a God..." If there is, then miracles are not impossible, even though they go against nature, since this God conceivably has powers above nature (above nature = supernatural). If there is not a God/god or some such being, then miracles are probably not possible. Again, however, science cannot prove or disprove His existence, so science does not logically have much to say about miracles.
|
|
|
Science has made some progress in the field of quantum physics.Some tests they did concerning the makeup of electrons brought surprising results. A test was devised the results of which would positively identify particles or waves. The test results showed that electrons are both particles....and waves. To determine how this could be possible, a way to observe the electrons during the test was devised. The results showed the electrons to be only particles. What the scientists had discovered was the mere observance of the electrons changed the outcome of their test. Other tests showed that electrons exist in more than one place at the same time....untill one tries to observe it. The electron then goes back to occupying only one point in space. My point is that the more science tries to explain things the more things remain unexplained. And to say that we must believe in what can be proven by science may not be entirely accurate.
|
|
|
"Nothing that happens in nature is out the laws which govern the nature." And you know this to be absolute truth? How do you know this? You can't know it from science; since science only deals with nature, it has no ability to deal with anything outside of nature, if such things exist. Science is wonderful, and scientists have learned a great deal, but they don't know everything. Unless you were there 2000 years ago to watch the miracles, you cannot know personally if they happened. If you have someone claiming to give a first-hand account of such miracles, then it is your choice whether or not to believe that person. But your opening statement is simple dogma; it is totally unprovable, and therefore unscientific. It is, in fact, a statement of faith; that is, your faith is apparently in science.
|
|
|
Meaton - It is unfortunate that you live beyound the radius of my house calls. However I will try to clarify some of your comments regarding electrons.
Electrons are thought to be point particles. To discuss there make up is to reject the Standard Model if successful you will win a noble prize.
Wave particle duality applies to everything including you. However, the wavelength decreases with mass. The smaller the wavelenght the more difficult it is to observe wavelike properties. For example if a wave hits a barrier with a hole that has comperable size to the waves wavelengths a diffraction pattern will ocurr.
At present the wavelike properties of neutrons has been observed. I believe the same is true for small nuclei ie alpha particle. I dont think it has been demonstrated with anything as large as an atom.
A fundamental postulate of quantum mechanincs is that particles have a certain probability of existing in any of their avialible states. Any test to determine the state will alter their state. One can say the it occupied that state, but cannot claim that it occupies this state when more than one state is availible. This is the foundation of Hiesenbergs uncertainty principle.
|
|
|
Gil - As a scientist and a christian my faith must be compatible with science. I lack the ability to belief in somethiing that has been proven false. However, God created the laws of physics. He could have created them to be time dependent. They could vary in time in a discontinous way. Hence, it is quite difficult to disprove a miracle. The idea that the laws of physics are changing in an unpredictable way makes it foolhardy to do physics. So, I try to be cognizant of the boundaries between science and faith. However, occasionaly the get blurred. For example the star of bethelhem was long considered a miricle. However I think there was a supernova at that time. I consider this to evidence in support of the new testament. However, one can argue with equal validity that it weakens the claim that Christ is devine.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 Next |
|
|
|
