In today’s culture, many dismiss Christians as an intellectually weak and close-minded group. It is commonly taught in high schools and collages that science clashes with Christianity. Victor Stenger, a Physicist, PhD, and bestselling author says “There are many conflicts between science and basic Christian beliefs that are irreconcilable. Science is not likely to change to accommodate Christianity.” Is this true?
The First Mover
Things move. In order for that movement to begin, there must be a mover; someone or something which applies force to an object. This is a basic law of physics. Therefore, when the universe was started there must be a starter, a God.
What Are the Odds
In 1966, Carl Sagan announced to the scientific world that there were only two requirements for the world to exist, a star and a planet the correct distance from that star. However, over the years Sagan’s two requirements grew to two-hundred. There are many different qualifications to meet, such as having a large mass close to the plant to pull in meteors. For all of Sagan’s requirements to be met is highly unlikely.
Not Possible
Moving outside planet Earth, to the universe, it’s easy to see the complexity. Things such as the strong and weak nuclear force have to be perfectly balanced. If they were off an inconceivable fraction of an inch off, the whole universe would implode. The universe is so complex, scientists think the chances of this universe existing is the same as flipping a coin and getting heads ten-quintillion times in a row. Not possible. Psalms 19:1 rings true when it says “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”
In conclusion
It’s obvious if you look at science, there must be a God. In many schools, it is taught that you can be Christian or believe in science. However, it’s apparent that to be to believe in science you must admit there is a God. In the words of Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
A little about Stengler
“Stenger was an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He was a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle. He maintained that if consciousness and free will do exist, they will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural”
Think about his statement “If consciousness and free will do exist they will eventually be explained in a scientific manner..” As a scientist he is making a statement and not a fact. He also seems to be saying that he questions the existence of consciousness. How do you have science without consciousness?
A good comment Terry. Basically, Stenger is asking the questions how do we know we are? I would simply point to Descartes Principles of Philosophy which first argument states basically because I doubt it proves I think, which proves I am. Here is the link to Descartes Principles of Philosophy http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/principles/section2/
A link to an interesting article from scientific Ameican
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-paradox-of-karl-popper/
The Paradox of Karl Popper
The great philosopher, renowned for his ferocious attacks on scientific and political dogmatism, could be quite dogmatic
By John Horgan on August 22, 20187
The world has been paying lots of attention to philosopher Karl Popper lately, although surely not as much as he would think he deserves. Popper, 1902-1994, railed against dogmatism in all forms. He is best-known for the principle of falsification, a means of distinguishing pseudo-scientific theories, like astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis, from genuine ones, like quantum mechanics and general relativity. The latter, Popper pointed out, make predictions that can be empirically tested. But scientists can never prove a theory to be true, Popper insisted, because the next test might contradict all that preceded it.
Your thoughts Luke
Terry