0
What else can I help you with?
Does the latest scientific evidence tend to point toward or away from God?
The latest scientific evidence does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Science and religion address different aspects of human existence, and many scientists hold varying beliefs about the relationship between the two. Ultimately, the question of God's existence lies outside the scope of empirical scientific inquiry.
What are five demonstrations for god's existence?
In order for there to be any demonstration of a god's existence, we'd first need to have a testable hypothesis about the nature of this god. This requires a thorough definition of the god in question: how it operates, why it operates this way, what it's made of, what makes it tick, what its abilities and limitations are, and so on. Without all of these restrictions, we cannot make testable statements about the god, and if we cannot make testable statements, then there will be nothing to demonstrate.
If we admire completely in god then we can't admire in science completely and vice versa. Can we admire in both God Science if yes then how?
I think you mean "If we believe" and not "if we admire" There is not really any clash between belief in -A- God and science.... the difficulty is between certain religious people's "form" of God and science. All that science says is that creation happened in the Big Bang. It claims that this happened at a certain time in the past and that following it all things have logical explanations - even if science cannot yet detail those explanations, it believes that it will eventually be able to explain all things. Science believes that life 'happened' because the conditions for it were right. Science has no opinion on whether there was a God behind this, it sees no reason to believe that one was, but it doesn't say that there was no god behind it. Some religions have views on creation which conflict with this, saying that all forms of life were deliberately and individually created by their God. True science and believing admiration need not be separated. Especially when we realize that God's truth is in no way contradicted by the proven facts of science. Belief in an orderly world is a foundational assumption of all scientific endeavor. Great scientific pioneers such as Copernicus, Newton, Keppler and Galileo all believed in a creator God. Keppler dedicated his work to the glory of God. What needs to be clearly understood is that the Bible, when rightly understood in its literal sense, does not contradict what is demonstrated by science. Many facts discovered by people who do not believe the Bible nevertheless support its view of history and of a young earth. No Bible believing scientist in this present age believes all species were individually created as they are now since we know that massive changes have occurred on this planet and creatures have adapted to these changes through the mechanism we call natural selection. It is certainly true that science can have nothing to say about God and his existence and yet many today try to use science deliberately to promote the philosophy of naturalism, closely allied to atheistic humanism. This need not cause anyone to be intimidated since these people deliberately re-interpret or ignore all facts which contradict their theory. The Bible states that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' describing the wonder the author felt at even what he could see, probably without any visual aid such as a telescope. How much more today in the age of Hubble. Thus true science need not be in conflict with true faith. True science can in fact lead to more admiration as we see the order, the complexity in more and more detail. More and more scientists, although of course a tiny minority at present, do in fact just this.
What is the cosmological argument?
The basic Platonic/Aristotelian cosmological argument is this:Every finite and contingent being has a cause.A causal loop cannot exist.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. God is then often inserted as this "First Cause".The newer more often quoted Kalam cosmological argument is this:(1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.(2)The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore:(5) God exists.The Kalam cosmological argument is the one most often used in contemporary debate by apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig.
Which theory maintains that the universe exist and appears for some reason and is an argument for the existence of God?
teleology
How does science provide evidence for the existence of God?
Science does not provide direct evidence for the existence of God as it focuses on natural phenomena and observable data. The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, which is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
When was The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God created?
The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God was created in 1763.
Does string theory support God's existence?
String theory is simply an enhancement of the traditional particle theory, that takes into account newly observed facts about subatomic particles. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Nothing in science does this.
Do we have scientific proff of the existence of God?
Science doesn’t have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural.
Who is the god of science?
Most people in Science would say there is no god, as some parts of Science teach against the existence of a God or Deity, instead processes of natural selection and evolution.
What does Stephan Hawkins say about the existence of god?
He says that science is sufficient to explain the universe, and invoking a god is no longer necessarry.
Why is it not science to study the existence of God?
Strictly speaking, science is the practice of studying measurable and verifiable data. Experiences of God cannot be recorded in a way that allows them to be verified by later observers, and the results cannot repeated. This is why the study of God is not science.
Identify the type of question that science is not able to answer?
Theological questions like "Is there a higher power/god?" If there was no god - the science would not prove his nonexistence because science doesn't do that. If there was a god - he probably would be powerful enough to hide his existence from scientists indefinitely thus rendering science useless in this matter. That would be it.
If science shows God is a delusion why are so many scientists Christians?
Some people is Science, especially a few in Physics are in Science to prove the existence of god to the world, and say that much Scientific Evidence points to a god, and some say the evidence points to natural process.
What do Einstein Hoyle Jastrow and Hawkings mean when they imply in their writings that their science has led them to conclude there must be a God?
It means they had found evidence that to them, supported the existence of God.
What did God speak in existence?
God spoke into existence the universe
Does science support spirit?
There are several different ways in which that question can be interpreted. Many scientists are of good spirit, and science helps keep them that way. Science has found no persuasive evidence of the existence of ghosts.
