I tend to get annoyed with the instantaneous dismissal of creationism simply because the physical world can support itself by itself, similar arguments. Or just the general idea that theists are theists because "science can't explain this phenomenon, therefore God did it". Nobody seems to recognize that "God" is outside the box of the universe; he isn't just some finite entity made of dark matter who at random times manipulates the physical realm in ways that science can't explain... eh.. what i'm getting at is that so what if science does accurately explain event X, what if we can even use science to explain everything that happens in the entire universe!? When a creationist says that God set the world into motion, that doesn't mean that said creationist has to pretend centripetal force and inertia is made up by God-haters and it is actually the physical hand of God spinning the earth and whirling it around the sun... that means said creationist believes that the centripetal force due to gravity is God's doing. This idea can apply to the Big Bang theory as well, even evolution for all I know. When the Bible says that God created the Earth in 6 days and I hear a counter argument that goes something like "oh well the earth was actually formed in x amount of days so explain that" I just say "the hell if I know" because I don't know! Go argue against a fundamentalist! I don't know if the Bible is speaking literally at that instance or not, if so, maybe it really was? who's to say at what point in the earth's creation did God start counting? Who's to set the precise definition of the word "day" in that verse? The point is that there are too many dang variables for anyone to outright dismiss God because of what's in the Book of Genesis, unless YOU are the one reading the Bible like a fundamentalist.
What I personally get from the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with science. You can't just compare science against God like they are two conflicting views of what happens in the universe. From a purely scientific point of view, I'm saying that maybe the deists or agnostics have it right in the sense that God may or may not intervene in the physical world and who the heck knows or even cares if He's actually moving stuff around or not. Worrying over "proving" that He does or does not exists is not the point, because science simply can't do that either way! Its just an endless cycle of opinion.
The Bible isn't intended to leave you worrying about finding tangible evidence for God. Finding God is a heart issue, not a science issue. I think that is what the Bible is all about. :)
Can you explain?
Thank you for the precise understanding of my post.
I messed up. I read it wrong. But I will make up for it with an apt comic.
you can replicate gravity (such as on a spaceship) using centripetal force but it is not the same as gravity.
Orbit...? Am I wrong?
god is not a 'heart issue'. if you make any claims about the physical universe
(creation, fine-tuning, etc, virgin birth, god stopping the motion of all celestial
objects so follower X could kill Y number of people in one day) the issue
becomes investigable by science. The existence of a celestial is a purely
scientific endeavour. If religion is just a ‘heart issue’ then it cannot make
claims about the physical universe and it must be nothing more than a philosophy.
...yes? (for all intents and purposes) that is why the heart issue I'm talking about has to do with the spiritual world, not the physical world. You can't feel in your heart that evolution, for example, is true or false.
That thing in your chest that pumps blood?
So you are saying that god doesn't exist in the same way that we do? since he is a matter of "heart issues" in the spiritual "world" and we are in the physical world?
To sum it up, god doesn't exist in the physical world?
Edit: fixed spelling
If we were to say god was a 'heart' issue then I do not 'feel' that this god exists. Do we compare notes and try to resolve this issue using demostrable facts, ie proof that said being exists or something that we can attribute only to its existance, or do we just say that my 'heart' (or your 'heart') is a better gauge for proving the existance of something? If we left to a 'heart' issue then everyone's opinion would be on equal ground and we would get no definite answer.