Should science be only for atheists

Nature is a gift of God to the highest evolved creature ( Man )
Man wants to study God's creation
So why should science be Godless ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why Creator or God can not be mentioned on science forum ?

The people who had experienced a relationship with God , God is real to them .

Those people who have not had a relationship , God for them does not exist to them

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most areas of science are fine to study with a belief in God in mind.
There are a few areas that may raise questions for some peoples certain beliefs though, such as some areas of Cosmology or Palaeontology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Ig Genesis one is taken and separate it from genesis 2 there should not be any problem

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aside from your spurious assertions, is there a point you're trying to make here?

I don't recall anyone proposing that theists should somehow be excluded from the practice of science......

 

I am a (lapsed) scientist, though I still do a little microscopy and biology on the side. I believe in mendelian genetics (discovered by a clergyman), and in evolutionary biology as per Darwin, who was deeply religeous. In fact, his most important work "On the origin of species" was delayed due to his fear of religeous uproar; He was proved correct. Many notable scientists see no problem with having a religeous belief whilst conducting outstanding scientific careers. Einstein himself said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He certainly did not ever try and discount God.
I find it saddening that people finf they have to take such extremely polarised views on religeon and science. If it was not for religeon, science would not be where it is today.
I think some people are just so paranoid that if they allow any religeous thought that they go totally nuts about it, which for a scientist is a wholly unobjective stance to take in my view. Fervent unrational dismissal is no better than fervent insistence on religeon. Both are as bad as each other, and niether forward the issue one iota.
There is room enough for both, and good research and proper presentation of the facts will win out whatever the source.

 

I hate to say it but: amen to that.

To be honest, I'm still trying to grasp the point of the OP...

 

Whaddya mean - "god"? Definition please...

 

Well perhaps this may clear up my bitching.
Mod note:

Yaracuy,

You have mentioned “God” and “creator” at least four times now.

“
Originally Posted by yaracuy
There must have been a creator for the beginning of life on the earth (post #47)
”
“
Originally Posted by yaracuy
Apparently some thing is missing ... The creator of life (post #49)
”
“
Originally Posted by yaracuy
most people talk after the nucleotide were created or synthesized let say by God sense I don't hear other input (post #73)
”
“
Originally Posted by yaracuy
the Spirit of God created them which comes from an other planet (post #75)
”
This is a science forum. If you want to discuss science, then please feel free to do so. The scientific method proceeds on the basis of a naturalistic mechanism behind observed phenomena and data. If there are gaps in scientific knowledge or science cannot explain something (which is certainly true of our understanding of abiogenesis), science does not throw its hands up and declare that ‘it must have been God’. If you want to speculate on the role of God or a ‘creator’ then you are no longer being scientific and I will move the thread to a non-science forum. (Note: depending on the nature of the conversation, this may be the Cesspool where threads are automatically locked.)

 

For each one of us god have a different meaning .
As for me He is the creator of nature and I am part of nature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Apply the scientific method to your god then.

 

"He"? What makes you think it's a "he"? And does "he" exist external to nature? Outside of space & time?

 

He said;

Are you blind?

jan.

 

Question: If there is a God He would have followers who will sacrifice their life for Him ?

Background : There are a lot of different followers for gods. God promised to His people He will bring them back to their land

Experiment : If there is a God will protect their chosen people from extinction, All sort of persecution and assimilation for over 3000 years have taken place

Result: The people of Israel have their own nation again after 1900 year

T

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

here you have you scientific method

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not even close.
How does the result: the people of Israel have their own nation
answer the question: does god have followers who will sacrifice their lives for him?

Your "experiment" is also badly (to the point of uselessness) flawed.

 

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What is wrong , Any body can say is wring, Question like what is wrong?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I stated what is wrong. The result does not relate to the initial question.
In fact it comes closer to disproving the premise.
If they survived and got a nation of their own then they didn't all sacrifice their lives, did they?

The "experiment" is flawed.
How do you eliminate/ account for all factors except for god during the experiment?
If someone dies or survives in this period what shows that it was due to god and god only?
Where, in the set-up of the experiment, is the time period given?
Are there other persecuted groups who have not declared any allegiance to god that have undergone (or still undergoing) similar trials and yet managed to get a nation of their own?
Can you show that this will not be the case in the future (since your experiment appears to be open-ended).
Etc etc.

 

1. Many peoples have gained a nation, and not all of them were monotheists.
2. 6 million of them died nationless and penniless, so how is that justice?

This is the same argument as saying that prayer works. Well, when you point to the one time prayer seemed to have worked, but you ignore all the times it didn't, that's not scientific, that's observer bias.

 

I guess you dont realize or you don't want to accept I am speaking strictly about Israel ,
You don't want to accept the biblical prophecy in the book of Isaia and Ezekiel

 

Those people have wanted their nation back ever since the Romans took it. That's why it's in their book. That's not a prophecy, that's just nationalism.