Posted on 10/15/2025 9:57:11 AM PDT by Heartlander
I can believe this.
With each process, as they dig deeper into them, find it more and more complex and more mathematically impossible to accept it as natural processes.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” – Psalms 19:1
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuseRomans 1:20.
Intelligent design wins that argument.
It seems physicists are more likely to believe in God than are biologists.
Probably because biology is taught in a very reductionist manner.
Full stop.
I do not believe the first two, Copernicus and Galileo, had any interest in overthrowing religion and God. They were attempting to more fully understand God's amazing creation if I remember correctly.
Roll back the calendar two+ centuries, and many of the great thinkers considered Christianity itself to be reasonable. The stench of modernity has a way of infecting everything, sadly.
This.
It is very difficult to understate the power and reach of indoctrination that happens at the universities.
Yes, while the simplistic science, reining nowadays in high schools, is explaining world without God, the sophisticated modern science cannot avoid him.
The problem is that the modern science is so complicated, that no ordinary high school science teacher can understand it.
It is sort of “I see God in these equations, you have to believe me!”
Nicolaus Copernicus was a devout Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, serving as a canon in a Polish cathedral. He saw no conflict between his heliocentric theory and his faith, believing that studying the natural, mathematical order of the universe was a way to honor God. He initially feared backlash from the academic community more than from the Church, and dedicated his book to Pope Paul III.
Materialist theories explaining the origins of the universe around us are becoming less persuasive.
It’s incredible with the Hubble and Webb telescopes how galaxies have become the new stars.
Mathematically improbable (impossible, really) levels of complexity being discovered in the basic cell must be frying the brains of many a hardened atheist (aging) biologist.
Two trillion galaxies and counting. More stars than the number of grains of sand on earth. And this is just in the observable universe.
Our galaxy is probably someone's star.
You’re somebody’s star, TLS.
Don’t go changin’. Lol
Oh, you...
Their heads and hearts are getting harder, to compensate.
Yes a lot of scientists have seen this for ages:
Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to Him.-Louis Pasteur
Pasteur had a lot of great quotes along these lines: https://www.azquotes.com/author/11366-Louis_Pasteur
Then of course there is Pascal’s wager, a logical argument for having faith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.[2]
I’ve always taken the combination of Pascal and the C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity” (and other works) as the logical arguments for why not just a belief in God is correct, but also that Christianity is the correct religion.
“Carlo Rubbia, Professor of Physics at Harvard and Nobel laureate: ‘We come to God by the path of reason, others follow the irrational path.’”
Well, isn’t he special.
I have always believed that one should give credit to those who were right. In this case, Carlo is a late arrival. He should admit it and give at least a little credit to those who were right when he was wrong. Besides, many who came to believe in God before him were rationale.
1) Expanding Universe (Big Bang)
2) Fine-tuning of physical constants
3) Junk DNA wasn't junk after all.
4) No plausible evolutionary explanation for the origin of life.
4a) No non-DNA based lifeforms have ever been found, which suggests that there was one origin of life making it a highly improbable event.
5) Cells are orders of magnitude more complex than presumed/predicted by evolutionists.
6) Neurosurgeons can't locate consciousness within the brain. The mind is part physical and part immaterial.
7) No plausible evolutionary explanation for the the Cambrian Explosion.
Several of these are derisively labeled 'God of the gaps' arguments, but over the last 50 years the gaps have widened, not narrowed as atheist predicted.
Three points that science gives as evidence of God’s existence: 1) the Big Bang. A creator is needed to create the universe, 2) The universe is too young to have arisen out of chaos or accident. There must be a creator. 3) the odds that the parameters for the natural forces are precisely aligned so that life can exist on the planet are so vast, they are nearly impossible to occur by accident. So a designer/creator was involved.
The worst hold out is Darwinian biology. They can’t explain the complicated machinery inside the cell at all. That machinery didn’t arrive by chance or accident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.