Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl

Hmm, seems that it was Newton’s reasoning that God was a God of order and that the universe could be investigated in an orderly manner to learn more about Him.

Pinging A-G as she is much better informed on that matter.

What you fail to recognize is that when there are only two sides of a topic, there can be no neutral ground. There is either God or no-God.

So your preference is the no God one.

Why and what makes it superior to the God position, in your mind?


166 posted on 11/30/2012 2:50:46 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
Where does God fit in Newton's theory? Can you fit God into any of Newton's equations? Where does God fit in the scientific method? Where does God fit in any scientific theory.

When Newton was doing science his view of God informed his view of science - but he did not presume to include God as the cause of any of his observations.

I also believe that God is a God of order and that the universe can be investigated in an orderly manner to learn more about God, and make useful predictive theories about the universe.

Einstein also assumed that God was a God of order. He wasn't a member of any traditional theology - but he did believe that God made the rules that governed the universe.

The dichotomy you attempt to set up - either God or no-God - is simplistic to the point of being infantile.

Does the Pope also prefer the “no God” explanation?

As to what makes scientific explanations superior to Goddidit explanations - that speaks for itself - and I have repeated it many times. Science is of use. Creationism is useless.

Useful is superior to useless.

Scientific explanations are useful and superior to creationist explanations that are inferior and useless.

170 posted on 11/30/2012 3:00:16 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

“seems that it was Newton’s reasoning that God was a God of order and that the universe could be investigated in an orderly manner to learn more about Him”

That was his reasoning, yes, but not his scientific reasoning. God stands without His own creation. Newtonian science is concerned only with creation. You don’t read “because God said so” at the end of each law of motion, and if you did it would be scientifically superfluous.

God is metaphysical; Newtonian physics is physical, naturally.


174 posted on 11/30/2012 3:17:53 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

“There is either God or no-God”

While true that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand (i.e. whether evolution is scientific). Or am I an atheist if I, for instance, discuss this week’s Sunday night football game without mentioning God?


175 posted on 11/30/2012 3:21:11 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson