Skip to comments.
Russian scientists certain of the existence of God
Interfax- Religion ^
| 06 October 2006, 11:06
| Interfax – Anatoly Akimov
Posted on 10/06/2006 3:45:55 PM PDT by RunningWolf
Moscow, October 6, Interfax The existence of God has been proved by scientific methods, Academician Anatoly Akimov, director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics, has stated.
There is God, and we can see the manifestations of His will. This is the opinion of many scientists; they not only believe in the Creator but rely on certain knowledge, he said in an interview published by the Moskovsky komsomolets daily on Friday.
The scientist noted that in the past centuries very many physicists believed in God. Moreover, until Isaac Newton, there was no separation between science and religion; science was practiced by clergy as they were the most educated people. Newton himself studied theology and used to repeat: I deduce laws of mechanics from laws of God.
(Excerpt) Read more at interfax-religion.com ...
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: god; isaacnewton; methods; scientific
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: Jorge
With your awesome testimony, you came to mind immediately!
To: RunningWolf
Russian scientists certain of the existence of God
Committed materialists
or
Committed theists
These Russians just keep changing their minds!
42
posted on
10/06/2006 7:04:03 PM PDT
by
VOA
To: RightOnline
The young scientist says "Look how clever how I am for discovering this!" The old scientist says "Look how clever God was to have done this!"
Yes, you'd think that Watson and Crick *invented* the double helix, wouldn't you.
43
posted on
10/06/2006 7:08:59 PM PDT
by
RussP
To: RunningWolf
Wow! Great post!
Check out this from my homepage:
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Think about it: the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton, saw *proof* of the intelligent design of the solar system -- yet modern evolutionists can find no *evidence* of intelligent design in the human body and mind. Someone is profoundly wrong here, folks ... and it isn't Isaac Newton!
44
posted on
10/06/2006 7:13:32 PM PDT
by
RussP
To: VOA
No they were always there, but their voices were silenced by the Lenin-Stalin powers (and/or they escaped).
I like your humor though!
W.
45
posted on
10/06/2006 7:25:55 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RussP
Someone is profoundly wrong here, folks ... and it isn't Isaac Newton!
That sir is the understatement of the year!
I will check out your homepage now.
W.
46
posted on
10/06/2006 7:28:03 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RussP
Funny how science has deteriorated, isn't it?
47
posted on
10/06/2006 7:33:50 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: presently no screen name
Thanks.
There's lots of little odd comments the writers of Scripture put in like that. It's fascinating when you finally notice them.
48
posted on
10/06/2006 7:35:33 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: RunningWolf
"No they were always there, but their voices were silenced by the
Lenin-Stalin powers (and/or they escaped)."
Yes, I was joshing a bit.
I don't know about the scientist demographic...but I do recall reading
that Stalin was horrified when his operatives discretely took a gauge of
public opinion after a few decades of "workers' paradise".
It appeared that years of browbeating had just about a zero effect on
the average Russian's (Soviet) personal belief (or disbelief) in religion.
That was discussed in this book:
The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
by Alister Mcgrath
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Atheism-Disbelief-Modern-World/dp/0385500610/sr=1-3/qid=1160188414/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-2346146-6554425?ie=UTF8&s=books
49
posted on
10/06/2006 7:42:14 PM PDT
by
VOA
To: RussP
Hey great article on the '102. I don't think many people knew just what it took to fly the century series fighters from the '100 to the '105.
Back in 1992 I was taking flying lessons from a retired Air Force F-100 Lt. Colonel friend of mine. On my first flight with him he had me doing stall and spin recovery out in the Pacific over Half Moon Bay. I learned how to fly 'by the numbers' from him. He was a fantastic guy. He had also flown the F84 'talk about a lead sled' he said LOL.
The F-100 as several of the other century series aircraft were extremely critical on take off and landing, and if anything went wrong there it was pretty much over for you.
My 'plane of choice' would have been the F-105. Now that was the Cold War Warrior.
W.
50
posted on
10/06/2006 7:48:08 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
Back in 1992 I was taking flying lessons from a retired Air Force F-100 Lt. Colonel friend of mine. On my first flight with him he had me doing stall and spin recovery out in the Pacific over Half Moon Bay. In a '102??? How about a 150 or a 152?
51
posted on
10/06/2006 7:51:04 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: VOA
You know, getting these links to new sources of information from FReeper's like you is one of the best things about the FR!
Thanks Again!
Wolf
52
posted on
10/06/2006 7:53:16 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: Coyoteman
No of course not, we were not in the '102. But it was a more advanced single engine-prop plane than the 150 or a 152.
As I recall neither of those planes had retracts and what we were flying did.
W.
53
posted on
10/06/2006 7:59:35 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: cripplecreek
When one blinds themselves from looking for God when looking at God's wonders due to their strict belief in the god of science, it's no wonder they can't see God.
54
posted on
10/06/2006 8:07:18 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
To: RunningWolf
But it was a more advanced single engine-prop plane than the 150 or a 152. As I recall neither of those planes had retracts and what we were flying did.
I did stall/spin training not far from there about the same time in a 150/152 Aerobat. Great fun!
(I don't think I'd like to spin a '102. About six revs and you're a pancake!)
55
posted on
10/06/2006 8:07:19 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
Hey did you ever eat at the little fresh fish eatery there on Half Moon Bay? It looked like nothing at all but a tiny old hamburger stand, and was not to far from where the boats unloaded the catch, and they had the best fish dinner in the world!
I have some stories from those days. Like the time I was pitched off my Excalibur Sail Boat without a life vest on, and spent 7 minutes treading water in that cold Pacific before my partner could bring the boat back and get me in (thats another story, & not his fault)
W.
56
posted on
10/06/2006 8:56:35 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: cripplecreek
"I often look to science for evidence of God. I fail to understand how someone can look at the Hubbel deep field photos of space and not see God's handiwork."
And amidst all that beauty, it is most likely we are unique.
I do not fathom the math to consider the probabilty!
57
posted on
10/06/2006 8:58:41 PM PDT
by
Prost1
(Fair and Unbiased as always!)
To: RunningWolf
thanks for the ping...it is amazing how all science points to God. It's just the darkside that works in our thoughts to try and make us doubt that.
58
posted on
10/07/2006 12:58:44 AM PDT
by
fabian
To: fabian
So true
Thanks for the insights. The darkside that works in our thoughts to try and make us doubt applies in most other areas also.
Take care,
W.
59
posted on
10/07/2006 6:01:52 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
Our Christian churches are full of Russians who never gave up, who worshipped in secret and who kept the faith during all those dark years that they had to live under, and let's say it: it was a Godless, atheistic man-made philosophy called Communism. God will always save a remnant for Himself.
60
posted on
10/07/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT
by
1000 silverlings
(why is it so difficult to understand?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson