| 6/25/2008 4:15:15 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
caley8s
Underwood, IA
age: 21
|
First of all I'd like to say I like this group. But Thomas wrote about scientific proof of God's existence.
I use it whenever I find myself in a discussion with someone who is aethist but walking on the edge of either side.
My personal favorite is one that refers to the law of preservation of matter, which states that no matter in the universe can be created or destroyed. If one were to hold to that rule, then something supernatural would be needed to have created the matter in the first place since there is no natural means for it to have happened.
|
| 6/25/2008 7:40:47 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Excellent point!
Lately the History channel has been running a scientific series concerning the creation of the universe.
It's interesting to see that scientifically the moment of creation, the separation of natural forces such as gravity and magnetism, etc, can be explained down to the .000000001 second, BUT can not (at all) explain (scientifically) what, why, or how it all started. Because the physical laws that apply to the universe did not exist before it's creation science admits it has no hope of calculating what caused the creation in the first place.
Of course we as Christians know that the universe was spoken into existence by the Word!
|
| 6/25/2008 8:54:53 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
caley8s
Underwood, IA
age: 21
|
I wish I still had the list he had quite a few but I'm sure google could save the day.
|
| 6/26/2008 7:12:50 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
geep128
Port Charlotte, FL
age: 63
|
Years ago I tried his "Summa Theologia(?)"...didn't finish though....heavy reading .....but I may try again.
Try todays catholic world .com...(St. Thomas Aquinas) all kind of reading on this and other authors.Take a pot of coffee ( or six pack ) because you will /can jump around using highlites, etc.
Good Luck 
|
| 6/26/2008 7:43:26 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
knightnyte2
Spring, TX
age: 55
|
Excellent point!
Lately the History channel has been running a scientific series concerning the creation of the universe.
It's interesting to see that scientifically the moment of creation, the separation of natural forces such as gravity and magnetism, etc, can be explained down to the .000000001 second, BUT can not (at all) explain (scientifically) what, why, or how it all started. Because the physical laws that apply to the universe did not exist before it's creation science admits it has no hope of calculating what caused the creation in the first place.
Of course we as Christians know that the universe was spoken into existence by the Word!
capt, i think i watched the same show. theory upon theory, none of it proven. All guess work. the funniest part of the show I watched was when they came out with the Big Bang theory. within a trillionith of a second, matter and antimatter was formed, all because of that 'big bang spark of light'. no one knows where that spark came from, but poof.. here we are.
Why does man when in doubt, make something up to fit? why cant we say, I dunno?
|
| 6/27/2008 7:41:57 AM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
Hi Knight
This is similar to the other thread running at the moment. My feelings are that at some point science and math, quantum physics, etc will eventually be able to explain the physical processes of the forming of the universe.
Even though it was formed by God, I believe that it followed a “process” or physical laws set up by God for this universe – evidently created at the very same instant. If this is so then it can (will?) eventually be explainable.
At the moment there is much debate as to what physically happened in the first 1/10 of a second, BUT more and more the scientist agree that there was a before and after; that the universe was indeed created in an instant.
This is exactly what Genesis has always said. The Bible gives the description only two sentences where the scientific “speculations” contain volumes, however they both are saying the same thing.
I think it's interesting that the more the scientific community attempts to prove the non-existence of God or disprove the claims of the Bible, the more it confirms what has been told by the Bible all along.
PS Although what we are discussing is if one can accept scientific studies and still believe in God and the truth of the Bible, this is NOT Christian Science or the Church of Christ, Scientist. The basic philosophies of this group are not based on the Bible OR science but rather the “speculations” of Mary Baker Eddy after her miraculous healing through prayer in the mid 1800s.
I believe in miraculous healings and the power of prayer, but I personally do not agree with the group's basic views that we only exist in the mind of God (greatly abbreviated!).
[Edited 6/27/2008 7:59:01 AM]
|
| 6/27/2008 9:33:29 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
knightnyte2
Spring, TX
age: 55
|
I feel differently. Until Christ returns, this argument will always be with us. Saying that to God, a thousand years is like a moment and time matters little to him is something man tries to use to justify evolution and God's creation. Even if you use the ages of Noah and the other long life people mentioned in the bible, 950 years would be less than a minute to God. Yet, in Psalms, King David talks about dinosaurs. If you calculate the linage of our ancestors from Adam, the numbers just do not add up. Even current day scientist verify that.
Can't have it both ways...
|
| 6/27/2008 9:45:05 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
caley8s
Underwood, IA
age: 21
|
I have a keychain on my car keys that says:
Big Bang theory;
God spoke and BANG!! it happened I love it, makes me laugh a little every time.
|
| 6/28/2008 2:10:53 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
geep128
Port Charlotte, FL
age: 63
|
Cap'n correct me or change it
My theology professor once said that science teaches when and where while religion teaches how and why.
when + where ....how + why = one compatable answer w/o conflict 
( I hope this is correctly remembered despite senior moments )
|
| 6/29/2008 7:44:14 AM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
elizabeth_fl
Tampa, FL
age: 36
|
Hi Knight
This is similar to the other thread running at the moment. My feelings are that at some point science and math, quantum physics, etc will eventually be able to explain the physical processes of the forming of the universe.
Even though it was formed by God, I believe that it followed a “process” or physical laws set up by God for this universe – evidently created at the very same instant. If this is so then it can (will?) eventually be explainable.
At the moment there is much debate as to what physically happened in the first 1/10 of a second, BUT more and more the scientist agree that there was a before and after; that the universe was indeed created in an instant.
This is exactly what Genesis has always said. The Bible gives the description only two sentences where the scientific “speculations” contain volumes, however they both are saying the same thing.
I think it's interesting that the more the scientific community attempts to prove the non-existence of God or disprove the claims of the Bible, the more it confirms what has been told by the Bible all along.
PS Although what we are discussing is if one can accept scientific studies and still believe in God and the truth of the Bible, this is NOT Christian Science or the Church of Christ, Scientist. The basic philosophies of this group are not based on the Bible OR science but rather the “speculations” of Mary Baker Eddy after her miraculous healing through prayer in the mid 1800s.
I believe in miraculous healings and the power of prayer, but I personally do not agree with the group's basic views that we only exist in the mind of God (greatly abbreviated!).
CAPT,
IT WILL NEVER BE EXPLAINED. SIMPLY, SCIENCE DOES NOT BRING GOD INTO THE EQUATION OF THINGS. THAT IS WHY EVERY THEORY ON EVOLUTION AND CREATION FALLS SHORT. THEY CAN "GUESS" AND HAVE SHOWN HOW EVOLUTION IS OCCURING, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO OMIT ONE CRITICAL LINK. "THE STARTING POINT". EXAMPLE, SCIENCE "ESTIMATES" THE AGE OF THE EARTH, YET DO THEY "REALLY" KNOW, NO, THEY DO NOT. THEY HAVE NO IDEA. WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE THEY NEVER WILL.
|
| 6/29/2008 2:53:21 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
captpappy
Morgan City, LA
age: 53
|
My personal beliefs, Elizabeth, is there is not enough time left for man's technical knowledge to advance enough to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how old the universe or Earth is, how it actually, physically formed (beyond all question), how life came to be (beyond all question), whether or not the flood encompassed the entire earth we know today or was a catastrophic event that happened local to central Asia and the Middle East (possible Eastern Europe also)- the "known" world at the time.
I believe that the time will come when God will unveil all his mysteries to us before we can advance to the point where we can prove the technical (beyond all question).
Given enough time, I believe man could advance far enough to answer the technical aspects of creation and some other events that happen in the Bible. Though many scientist are also Christian, I don't believe pure science will ever admit to WHO was responsible because there is no way to scientifically prove it.
Ultimately, I agree with you because to believe that God created the universe, Earth, and all life on and in the Earth, and man himself, is undeniably an act of faith; it can NOT and never will be provable scientifically that God created all.
But consider this:
Mom says, “Children, I love you so much that I prepared this bread for you.”
Dad says, “Kids, to make bread, first the wheat is harvested, then the wheat is turned to flower by being crushed between two great stones, then water must mix with the flower to form a dough, then a fire must bring the temperature in an oven to 325° and the dough will rise and cook in this heat for 20 minutes”
Mom only wants her Children to know WHY she made the bread.
Dad wants his kids to know HOW the bread was made.
It may seem that Dad is claiming the bread is responsible for it's own existence. Dad did not see Mom actually make the bread so (because he only wants to teach his kids how to make bread) he can not say for sure that Mom actually did make the bread (even if he really does believe her when she says she baked the bread).
Dad's description does not claim that Mom did not make the bread and Mom's explanation does not say that Dad is wrong in his description of how she did it. For the children to argue that either description disproves the other is pointless and clouds their understanding of both truths.
It is the children who are wrong for continuing to argue over their own misunderstanding of the two descriptions.
I apologize for the lengthy post but I want to make sure readers understand that I am not arguing for either side. I believe God created all we know and used the laws of nature He created on the first day to do it. I also believe that man is capable of advancing his technical knowledge far enough to describe how these processes work - given enough time.
[Edited 6/29/2008 3:09:05 PM]
|
| 6/29/2008 3:26:18 PM |
To anyone who has read Thomas Aquinas' work |
|
llfuzzball
Denver, CO
age: 43
|
I think this is on topic but forgive me if I am not.
To quote Mary Poppins, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could."
Everything does need a cause except God.
God is the uncaused first cause.
|